Thanks Susan, We will make all needful changes next week.
Eric From: Susan Hares [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 3:18 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas'; 'Alia Atlas'; Eric Voit (evoit); Alexander Clemm (alex); Alberto Gonzalez Prieto (albertgo) Subject: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements Eric, Alexander, Alberto: This is a shepherd's review of draft-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements. Status: 95% ready for Directorate reviews and IESG with 1 minor technical comment, and a few minor editorial changes. Overall comment: This document is a joy to read with carefully written English, excellent descriptions of the concepts, and a carefully thought out set of requirements. Minor technical point: [i2rs-pubsub-security] is no longer an individual draft. If you feel this draft provides significant additions to the I2rs-protocol-security and I2rs-protocol-security-environment by provide specific concept on [I2rs-pubsub-security], please indicate this in your response. We will work on adopting and refining this draft. If you could work on these minor changes this week, we'll try to get the Directorate reviews over the next 2 weeks. Thank you, Sue Hares ============================== Editorial: #1 p. 2 section 1 You should change period in first bullet to ", and" and the second bullet to ".". o a reliance on RPC-style interactions where data is configured or fetched on-demand by applications. o change notifications which identify a node associated with the config change, without the actual data updates #2) p. 3 paragraph 4 Predating YANG is an issue, as monitoring and filtering based on YANG subtrees becomes problematic . [RFC6470<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6470>] defines change /problematic ./problematic./ #3) p. 4 section 2.1, bottom: Revise the references to I2RS architecture document to match https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-11 #4) p. 5 update the section 2.1 [i2rs-pubsub-security] is no longer an individual draft. Once you have determined whether it is needed, update this section. #5) section 2.3, p. 6 first paragraph s/We need a technology/We need a new pub-sub technology/ #6) section 4.1,1 paragraph, 2 sentence s/However, In/However, in/ #7) section 4.1.2, p. 9, 3 paragraph. This is a single sentence s/A Subscription may include filters as defined within a Subscription Request, the Subscription Service must publish only data nodes that meet the filter criteria./ /A Subscription may include filters as defined within a Subscription Request. Therefore, the Subscription Service must publish only data nodes that meet the filter criteria within a subscription./ #8 section 4.2.3 , p. 10, paragraph 1 Sentence: The updates for each object needs to include an indication whether it was removed, added, or changed. s/needs/need/ - the updates is plural noun to my reading. However, this grammar can be argued another way. #9 - section 4.2.5, p. 12, 3rd paragraph A loss of authenticated access to subtree or node SHOULD be communicated to the Subscriber s/Subscriber/Subscriber./ #10 - section 4.2.6, p. 12 A Subscription Service should be able to negotiate the following Subscription QoS parameters with a Subscriber: Dampening, Reliability, Deadline, Bundling. s/Bundling/ and Bundling./ #11 - section 4.2.8, p. 8 Lists elements should be terminated with ";" .
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
