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

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

Dear Barry,

Thanks for the review. Please see inline.

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:04 AM Barry Leiba via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Barry Leiba 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Just some very minor things here:
>
> Please use the new BCP 14 boilerplate and add a normative reference to RFC
> 8174.
>
>
I am using a standard .xml file, and when I compare the xml2rfc output with
the recent RFCs (e.g., RFC 8710, standard track), I do see the difference.
Thanks for catching it and we will fix.


> — Section 2 —
> It’s a small thing, but in the first paragraph is it really useful to list
> the
> terms, only to have each one defined right below?  My eye can instead run
> down
> the paragraphs and catch the list of terms that way.
>
>
The list in the paragraph could serve as a "checksum", but it is indeed
quite close by and removing redundancy is a better principle than
"checksum". We will remove.



> — Section 8 —
> Just a note that I did not carefully review the examples.
>
>
OK.


> — Section 12 —
> Please add “Fragment identifier considerations” to the templates, as
> required
> by RFC 6838.  It would also not be a bad idea to separate the two templates
> with whitespace or a text paragraph, for readability.
>
>
Good suggestion. We will add Fragment identifier considerations” to the
templates; add RFC 6838 in the Section (RFC 6838 is already a normative
reference, but we will add a sentence to refer to it in Sec. 12). Yes we
will add whitespace for better readability.

Thanks again!

Richard