Hi Richard, The concern is that RFC7396 could be updated by another RFC or even obsoleted. Therefore duplicating any formal specification should be avoided and it’s actually a feature that people have to look up RFC7396. I recommend to remove the pseudo code and replace it by a few sentences that loosely described the scheme.
Mirja > On 11. Mar 2020, at 21:49, Y. Richard Yang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Suresh, > > Thanks for the review! Please see inline. > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:20 PM Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker > <[email protected]> wrote: > Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Section 3.1.1.: > I feel strongly that this document should not restate the pseudo-code for > the > JSON merge patch algorithm and should instead use a reference to Section 2 > of > RFC7396 instead. This will avoid inconsistencies (e.g. note that the pseudo > code in this draft is *already different* from that in RFC7396 even though > the difference is only the braces) and be amenable to updates to RFC7396. > > > This is an interesting discussion point. In an earlier version, the authors > had some back-and-forth on including the pseudo-code or not. The "include" > argument "won" because it makes the document more self-contained and a > potentially more pleasant read---a reader does not need to track down a > separate document to find the pseudo-code, and we are referring to a "fixed" > document---I can see your argument that there can be Errata/Update to the > RFC7396 pseudocode. It is amazing that you caught the difference in braces vs > : ! One proposal is that we change to the exact format (replace braces with > {) as in RFC 7396 and keep the pseudocode. Or let the coauthors discuss a bit > more and get a conclusion in the next couple of days. How does this sound? > > References: > > Is there a reason this document is using the obsoleted JSON reference to > RFC7159? Suggest updating the reference to RFC8259. > > > Good catch. We are updating to RFC 8259. Thanks! > > Thanks again. > Richard _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
