Re: [alto] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Sun, 15 March 2020 04:09 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A10E3A0DDC; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 21:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id naw6La9KwpIX; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 21:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 235EC3A0DDA; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 21:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 02F49DcD001795 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 15 Mar 2020 00:09:15 -0400
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 21:09:12 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: "Y. Richard Yang" <yry@cs.yale.edu>
Cc: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>, last-call@ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, alto@ietf.org, draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse.all@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200315040912.GB50174@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <158380111093.5655.3828389409545643059@ietfa.amsl.com> <CANUuoLpCzwwWAtof+qhAcnY7c0qGOYDsPY-hdQ1rQo_pA0RMMQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANUuoLpCzwwWAtof+qhAcnY7c0qGOYDsPY-hdQ1rQo_pA0RMMQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/Vj-pmUlcPArYy46J8TRbdHuWhFQ>
Subject: Re: [alto] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <alto.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/alto/>
List-Post: <mailto:alto@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2020 04:09:28 -0000
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:25:12AM -0400, Y. Richard Yang wrote: > Dear Elwyn, > > Thanks a lot for the review! Please see inline below. > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 8:45 PM Elwyn Davies via Datatracker < > noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > > Review result: Almost Ready > > > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > > like any other last call comments. > > > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20 > > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > > Review Date: 2020-03-09 > > IETF LC End Date: 2020-03-06 > > IESG Telechat date: 2020-03-12 > > > > Summary: > > Almost ready. There are a few editorial issues, but I am not sure that > > > > Major issues: > > I am unsure whether this mechanism is proof against loss of messages or > > reordering of messags. Although there are state tags, it does not appear > > to > > have any way to ensure that the state to which the updates will be applied > > in > > the client are identical to the state that the updates were generated > > from. If > > I am wrong, it would be useful (IMO) to explain how the proposal avoids > > getting > > updates that don't apply to the state in the client. > > > > Good comment! A short answer is that the design should have no consistency > problems. > > More details: > > (1) This design is based on http/1.x as transport, which provides a single, > reliable, in-order serialization of update messages: m1, m2, m3, ... > The transport will guarantee that the messages will be delivered lossless, > in order. I did not remember getting the impression that it was required to use HTTP/1.x transport with this specification, as I attempted to note in my ballot, SSE is not HTTP/1.x-specific. If the intent is to only allow the usage of HTTP/1.x with HTTP/2 (or HTTP/3) left to future work, I think that (e.g.) the end of Section 3.3 needs to be more explicit about this. -Ben
- [alto] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-alto… Elwyn Davies via Datatracker
- Re: [alto] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-… Y. Richard Yang
- Re: [alto] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-… elwynd
- Re: [alto] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-… Y. Richard Yang
- Re: [alto] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of d… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [alto] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of d… Y. Richard Yang
- Re: [alto] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [alto] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of… Y. Richard Yang
- Re: [alto] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of… Y. Richard Yang