Juergen: Hi!
WFM. Thanks! Alvaro. On January 10, 2018 at 11:07:04 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder ( [email protected]) wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:10:23PM -0800, Alvaro Retana wrote: > > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-09: 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-netmod-revised-datastores/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > (1) Please add a sentence to the Introduction explaining how this document > updates rfc7950. I know that a couple of sections explicitly indicate what > part of rfc7950 they update, but having a short summary at the beginning > would > be nice. > > (2) Section 3 says: “It is expected that the revised definitions provided > in > this section will replace the definitions in [RFC6241] and [RFC7950] when > these > documents are revised.” Why not formally Update those documents here? [See > my > note above about the Update to rfc7950.] > > > The formal 'update of RFC 7950' is driven by the sections 6.1 and 6.2 > and not so much to the terminology section. While we expect that the > terminology wording will be harmonized in a future revision of RFC > 7950, this does not seem to require a formal update of RFC 7950 at > this point in time (since the definitions are semantically > equivalent). > > So back to the abstract: We could be more explicit by saying: > > This document updates the definition of the XPath context and the > invocation context of operations in RFC 7950. > > Personally, I think this makes the abstract harder to read. Perhaps a > better solution is to leave the abstract as is and to add this one > sentence paragraph to the Introduction (before the key words > boilerplate text). > > This document updates RFC 7950 by refining the definition of the > accessible tree for some XPath context (see Section 6.1) and the > invocation context of operations (see Section 6.2). > > (3) s/Section 4.4 of this document/Section 4.4 of rfc6244 > > > Yes, this is better. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
