Re: [alto] WGLC for draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-11

[Kerim Gokarslan <[e-mail]>]

Dear Vijay and WG,

I finished reviewing the draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-ssef document (version
12). I think the language of the document and the design is clean and
complete. I didn't see any major technical issue (or design errors) but I
marked some small issues like spelling and punctuation errors, which can be
seen as 'nits'.


Page 4, Paragraph 3, Line 3: provides -> provide (noun is plural)

Page 4, Paragraph 4, Line 6: satsify -> satisfy (spelling)

Page 6, Paragraph 2, Line 7: sends -> send

Page 6, Paragraph 2, Line 1: Update Stream Control (spelling)

Page 12, Section 4.3.1, Line 1: the difference (missing the)

Page 15, Paragraph 3, Line 6: An data -> a data

Page 15, Paragraph 4, Line 1: A update -> an update

Page 15, Paragraph 4, Line 2: life time -> lifetime

Page 17, Last Paragraph, Line 3: an URI -> a URI

Page 26, Section 9.1 Paragraph 3, Line 1: Also note -> Also, note (missing
comma)

Page 28, Section 9.2 Paragraph 1, Line 10: Thus server -> Thus, server
(missing comma)

Page 30, Paragraph 2, Line 2: a ipv4 -> an ipv4

Page 40, Paragraph 2, Line 3: Unfortunately there -> Unfortunately, there
(missing comma)

Page 42, Paragraph 1, Line 2: First consider -> First, consider (missing
comma)

Page 42, Section 11.4 Paragraph 1, Line 7: extention -> extension (spelling)

Page 42, Section 12.1: I think the first paragraph is a little confusing,
maybe the idea can be specified more explicit.

Page 44, Paragraph 3, Line 1: Alternatively an -> Alternatively, an
(missing comma)

Regards,
Kerim Gokarslan


On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Kerim: Great, thanks a lot for volunteering.
>
> Please post your review on the WG email list.
>
> I suspect that you are getting acquainted with IETF processes; in that
> vein, here's some quick advice that I hope will help you as you perform
> a WGLC.
>
> A WGLC covers the entire I-D, you can point out anything in the draft
> that you feel needs to be improved.  Generally speaking, every reviewer
> has their own style of performing WGLC reviews, you can see some
> examples here [1, 2].  However, all reviews should include issues that
> are 'major' (needs attention of author AND WG to moving the work ahead),
> minor (may only need the attention of author to clarify things), and
> 'nits' (needs attention of authors only).  It is okay if one or more of
> these categories is empty, however, due diligence must be done to ensure
> that there were indeed no issues to raise under that particular category.
>
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto/current/msg03581.html
> [2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto/current/msg03513.html
>
> Cheers,
>
> On 07/02/2018 05:30 PM, Kerim Gokarslan wrote:
> > Hi Vijay,
> >
> > I talked with Richard and I would like to help with a review.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kerim Gokarslan
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Y. Richard Yang <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >     Dear WG,
> >
> >     The authors have gone ahead to fix the coupling issue between update
> >     stream and stream control. To allow the community to read what the
> >     document reads like, we have uploaded the newer version, which can
> >     be found at:
> >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse/
> >     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse/>
> >     Please see version 12.
> >
> >     It is a much cleaner, modular, complete design. Last-call feedbacks,
> >     of course, are still highly appreciated and the authors will update
> >     as soon as possible, to improve on reactiveness.
> >
> >     Thanks a lot!
> >     Richard
> >
> >
> >     On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:09 AM Vijay K. Gurbani
> >     <vijay.gurbani@nokia..com <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >         Richard, one of them must provide a WGLC review for the draft.
> >         The WG
> >         must to due diligence through dedicated reviews to ensure that
> >         the work
> >         reflects the consensus of the WG.
> >
> >         I will like to see new members to start contributing to the WG,
> >         as such
> >         while my preference would be for Danny to review the draft and
> >         post WGLC
> >         comments, I will leave it to the WG members to decide who will
> >         review it.
> >
> >         I was hesitant to ask Sabine and Jensen since, in all fairness,
> they
> >         have done their share of reviews and comments over the years.  I
> >         iterate, it would be great if other members of the WG step up to
> >         move
> >         the work ahead.
> >
> >         >From a process point of view, I realize that the cutoff is
> >         today so I am
> >         expecting that we will not be in time to submit a version.
> However,
> >         that is fine as long as we have a WGLC on the currently
> >         submitted draft
> >         by the time we have our meeting on Monday, Jul-16.
> >
> >         After the meeting, I can do the proto-writeup and move the work
> >         ahead.
> >
> >         Cheers,
> >
> >         On 07/02/2018 09:46 AM, Y. Richard Yang wrote:
> >         > Vijay,
> >         >
> >         > The ideas that I posted were discussed with Sabine, Jensen,
> >         and Danny,
> >         > who are not co-authors of the document.
> >         >
> >         > I assume that they are busy today, as 8 pm ET today is IETF
> draft
> >         > deadline. Maybe they can help with our review tomorrow (July
> >         3) or the
> >         > day after tomorrow (July 4), before the close :-)
> >         >
> >         > Thanks!
> >         > Richard
> >         >
> >         >
> >         >
> >         > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:34 AM Vijay K. Gurbani
> >         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >         > <mailto:[e-mail]
> >         <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
> >         >
> >         >     Folks: Following up on Richard's email, we need a
> >         dedicated WGLC review
> >         >     for SSE from the WG.  Jan and I will like to invite at
> >         least one person
> >         >     who is not an author to volunteer to review the draft as
> >         part of WGLC.
> >         >
> >         >     Thus far, besides Richard's email, there has not been any
> >         review or
> >         >     comments on the draft since it was released for WGLC.  We
> >         will need to
> >         >     be more proactive as a WG to move pending work ahead.
> >         >
> >         >     Please send me and Jan a message on whether you are able
> >         to perform a
> >         >     review of the draft in short order so we can move it ahead
> >         >     expeditiously.
> >         >
> >         >     Thank you,
> >         >
> >         >     On 07/01/2018 10:32 PM, Y. Richard Yang wrote:
> >         >     > Dear WG,
> >         >     >
> >         >     > Thanks a lot for those who already sent comments to the
> >         authors! As an
> >         >     > important service, this document can benefit from
> >         in-depth reviews, as
> >         >     > Vijay pointed out.
> >         >     >
> >         >     > The main substantive comment so far is on clarifying the
> >         coupling
> >         >     > between the Update Stream Service (USS), which will be
> >         used by the
> >         >     > network to send SSE Update Messages to a client, and the
> >         Update Stream
> >         >     > Control Service (USCS), which will be used by the client
> to
> >         >     control the
> >         >     > server, by sending add/remove of resources messages. In
> >         the current
> >         >     > design, SSE update messages can provide the final
> >         outcome of a control
> >         >     > request. The comment was whether this is a generic
> design.
> >         >     >
> >         >     > After extensive discussions among the authors, we
> >         propose to make the
> >         >     > following revisions---these revisions will be simple and
> >         clean, and if
> >         >     > approved by the WG, they can be updated right away:
> >         >     >
> >         >     > M1. The document clarifies that USS uses a *modular*
> >         design, in
> >         >     that the
> >         >     > Update Stream Service (USS) is a modular service. Hence,
> >         it can be
> >         >     > controlled by not only USCS but also other potential
> >         control channels,
> >         >     > such as a private control protocol. Hence, the messaging
> >         of USS, in
> >         >     > particular, its Control Update Messages, should be
> >         (slightly)
> >         >     revised to
> >         >     > reflect this spirit.
> >         >     >
> >         >     > M2. The document clarifies that USS uses a
> >         self-contained design, to
> >         >     > take advantage that current design can be simply,
> elegantly
> >         >     extended to
> >         >     > also report error updates.
> >         >     >
> >         >     > The authors request that the WG approve these edits so
> >         that the
> >         >     authors
> >         >     > can proceed to submit a revision shortly, in just a
> >         couple days.
> >         >     >
> >         >     > Of course, the authors will also wait for other
> >         comments, until
> >         >     the July
> >         >     > 4th closing, to make a single, coherent edit.
> >         >     >
> >         >     > Thank you so much!
> >         >     > Richard
> >         >     >
> >         >     > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:21 AM Vijay K. Gurbani
> >         >     > <[e-mail]
> >         <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
> >         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >         >     <mailto:[e-mail]
> >         <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
> >         <mailto:[e-mail]>>>>
> >         >     wrote:
> >         >     >
> >         >     >     All: This email announces the WGLC for SSE [1]; the
> >         WGLC runs
> >         >     from Wed,
> >         >     >     Jun 20, 2018 to Wed, Jul 4, 2018.
> >         >     >
> >         >     >     We will like the community members to perform an
> >         in-depth
> >         >     review of the
> >         >     >     draft and post their comments, concerns or approval
> >         to the
> >         >     mailing list
> >         >     >     during this period, even if it is one liner
> >         expressing support for
> >         >     >     moving the draft ahead.
> >         >     >
> >         >     >     [1]
> >         https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-11
> >         <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-11>
> >         >     >
> >         >     >     Thank you,
> >         >     >
> >         >     >     - vijay
> >         >     >     --
> >         >     >     Vijay K. Gurbani / [e-mail]
> >         <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >         >     <mailto:[e-mail]
> >         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >         >     >     <mailto:[e-mail]
> >         <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >         <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
> >>>
> >         >     >     Network Data Science, Nokia Networks
> >         >     >     Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq
> >         >     >
> >         >     >     _______________________________________________
> >         >     >     alto mailing list
> >         >     >     [e-mail] <mailto:alto@ietf..org>
> >         <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >         <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >         >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
> >         >     >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
> >         <https://www.ietf..org/mailman/listinfo/alto>
> >         >     >
> >         >     >
> >         >
> >         >     - vijay
> >         >     --
> >         >     Vijay K. Gurbani / [e-mail]
> >         <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >         >     <mailto:[e-mail]
> >         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >         >     Network Data Science, Nokia Networks
> >         >     Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq
> >         >
> >         >
> >         >
> >         > --
> >         > --
> >         >  =====================================
> >         > | Y. Richard Yang <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >         <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>   |
> >         > | Professor of Computer Science       |
> >         > | http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/        |
> >         >  =====================================
> >
> >         - vijay
> >         --
> >         Vijay K. Gurbani / [e-mail]
> >         <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >         Network Data Science, Nokia Networks
> >         Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq
> >
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     --
> >      =====================================
> >     | Y. Richard Yang <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>   |
> >     | Professor of Computer Science       |
> >     | http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/        |
> >      =====================================
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     alto mailing list
> >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto>
> >
> >
>
> - vijay
> --
> Vijay K. Gurbani / [e-mail]
> Network Data Science, Nokia Networks
> Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq
>