Hi Francesca, Thanks for the review. Please see our responses to the "other points" below.
Best, Kai > -----Original Messages----- > From: "Francesca Palombini via Datatracker" <[email protected]> > Send time:Wednesday, 10/25/2023 14:29:19 > To: "The IESG" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected] > Subject: [alto] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on > draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-17: (with DISCUSS) > > Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-17: Discuss > > 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you for the work on this document. > > Many thanks to Spencer Dawkins for his ART ART reviews (most recent being > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/LibZiksz5-nO-g8IyOJrrtczj94/), and > to > Martin Thomson for his HTTPDir reviews (most recent being > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/vz87ZLJVlbuVnSacxli8hvl-LTU/). > Spencer and Martin's expertise has helped improve the document considerably, > so > thanks to them, and to the authors for considering their reviews. > > I have a couple of points I'd like to DISCUSS. > > First of all, I have looked for media type reviews in the media-types mailing > list, and could not find the registration request posted. As specified by > RFC6838, it is strongly encouraged to post the media type registration to the > media-types mailing list for review (see > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/1hOBaaTVCfl-M3uHmu2a7Q5Ogzk/ > for an example of a registration review). If I missed it, my apologies. If > not, > please post to the media-types mailing list, and I will remove the discuss > with > no objections raised in a week or so. Please make sure to copy-paste the full > sections 10.1 and 10.2 (not just a pointer to them) in your mail to > media-types. > > Talking about the media types, I was surprised to see that both media types > are > used with two different formats. For example, application/alto-tips+json is > used both with a JSON object of type AddTIPSResponse (section 6.2) and a JSON > object of type UpdatesGraphSummary (section 7.4.2). I asked Murray to take a > look (as the expert on media types), so I will look out for his ballot there. [KAI] Thanks for pointing this out. We change the media type of the response in section 7.4.2 to "application/merge-patch+json", updating the base object of type AddTIPSResponse. > > In several places (see below for what I identified as problematic SHOULDs) the > document lacks text about why these are SHOULD and not MUST or MAY. I agree > with John Klensin, who formulated it very clearly: If SHOULD is used, then it > must be accompanied by at least one of: (1) A general description of the > character of the exceptions and/or in what areas exceptions are likely to > arise. Examples are fine but, except in plausible and rare cases, not > enumerated lists. (2) A statement about what should be done, or what the > considerations are, if the "SHOULD" requirement is not met. (3) A statement > about why it is not a MUST. I believe some context around these would be > enough > to solve my concern, and give the reader enough context to make an informed > decision. If you believe the context is there, and I just missed it, please do > let me know. > > Francesca > > Section 6.2: > > > A server SHOULD NOT use properties that are not included in the request body > to determine the URI of a TIPS view, such as cookies or the client's IP > address. [KAI] The context of the sentence is not clear. We change the paragraph to the following: A server MUST NOT use a URI for different TIPS views, either for different resources or different request bodies to the same resource. URI generation is implementation specific, for example, one may compute a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID, [RFC4122]) or a hash value based on the request, and append it to a base URL. For performance considerations, it is NOT RECOMMENDED to use properties that are not included in the request body to determine the URI of a TIPS view, such as cookies or the client's IP address, which may result in duplicated TIPS views in cases such as mobile clients. However, this is not mandatory as a server may intentionally use client information to compute the TIPS view URI to provide service isolation between clients. > > > If the TIPS request does not have a "resource-id" field, the error code of > the error message MUST be E_MISSING_FIELD and the "field" field SHOULD be > "resource-id". > > > The "field" field SHOULD be the full path of the "resource-id" field, and > > the > "value" field SHOULD be the invalid resource-id. [KAI] The SHOULD here are changed to MUST, with the condition "if present" as "field" and "value" attributes are optional according to RFC 7285. > > Section 7.2: > > > Hence, the server processing logic SHOULD be: > [KAI] Changed to MUST. > Section 8.5: > > > If the new value does not, whether there is an update depends on whether the > previous value satisfies the test. If it did not, the updates graph SHOULD NOT > have an update. > [KAI] This section is repeating Section 9.3 of RFC 8895 and is now removed from this document. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
