Archive

Hi Vijay,

Thanks for the reply, it is a good point that the result should also be sent in the update stream service.

Besides, there is another point that the result should also be sent in the update stream service. If the server process requests asynchronously, when it receives the request from the client and insert it in its queue, it will first send a response back to the client; and after the server successfully processed the request, it will send a reply via the update stream service. This case requires the server to indicate the state of the “remove” operation in the reply. A simple attribute “state” with type JSON boolean in the UpdateStream ControlEvent can solve the concern. If "state" is false, the operation fails; if "state" is true, the operation succeeds.

object {
        [String control-uri;]
        [Boolean state;]
        [String remove<1..*>;]
} UpdateStreamControlEvent;

This is my idea for option 2.

Wish to hear opinions from others in the group.

Best Wishes,
Dawn

________________________________________
From: alto <alto-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Y. Richard Yang <yry@cs.yale.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 3:57:14 AM
To: Gurbani, Vijay (Nokia - US)
Cc: IETF ALTO
Subject: Re: [alto] Need to move SSE to WGLC, but ...

Dear Vijay, Jan,

Thank you so much. It is a wonderful idea to check the WG for additional comments on the mentioned issues. The authors will address suggestions, if any, and then move the document forward.

Thanks!
Richard

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:04 AM Vijay K. Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@nokia.com<mailto:vijay.gurbani@nokia.com>> wrote:
Folks: Jan and I would like to move SSE [1] to WGLC.

Looking at the mailing list, we note that the authors are asking input
from the WG on an issue in SSE [2].

We would kindly request the WG to spend some time thinking about the
question being asked in [2] and to chime in with some thoughts.

Assuming that there is no response by next week on this, the authors can
proceed with their default position on this, for which they have an
articulated reason in [2].

Jan and I will follow up next week and if there has not been any further
list discussion on this, we will move the work ahead to WGLC.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse/
[2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto/current/msg03684.html

Thanks,

- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani / vijay.gurbani@nokia.com<mailto:vijay.gurbani@nokia.com>
Network Data Science, Nokia Networks
Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org<mailto:alto@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

--
--
 =====================================
| Y. Richard Yang <yry@cs.yale.edu<mailto:yry@cs.yale.edu>>   |
| Professor of Computer Science       |
| http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/        |
 =====================================