Re: [alto] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20: (with COMMENT)

["Y. Richard Yang" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Suresh,

Thanks for the review! Please see inline.

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:20 PM Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20: 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-alto-incr-update-sse/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Section 3.1.1.:
>   I feel strongly that this document should not restate the pseudo-code
> for the
>   JSON merge patch algorithm and should instead use a reference to Section
> 2 of
>   RFC7396 instead. This will avoid inconsistencies (e.g. note that the
> pseudo
>   code in this draft is *already different* from that in RFC7396 even
> though
>   the difference is only the braces) and be amenable to updates to RFC7396.
>
>
This is an interesting discussion point. In an earlier version, the authors
had some back-and-forth on including the pseudo-code or not. The "include"
argument "won" because it makes the document more self-contained and a
potentially more pleasant read---a reader does not need to track down a
separate document to find the pseudo-code, and we are referring to a
"fixed" document---I can see your argument that there can be Errata/Update
to the RFC7396 pseudocode. It is amazing that you caught the difference in
braces vs : ! One proposal is that we change to the exact format
(replace braces with {) as in RFC 7396 and keep the pseudocode. Or let the
coauthors discuss a bit more and get a conclusion in the next couple of
days. How does this sound?


> References:
>
> Is there a reason this document is using the obsoleted JSON reference to
> RFC7159? Suggest updating the reference to RFC8259.
>
>
Good catch. We are updating to RFC 8259. Thanks!

Thanks again.
Richard