Re: [core] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-senml-etch-05: (with COMMENT)

[Ari Keränen <[e-mail]>]

Thank you once more for your review Warren! See answers and fix suggestions below.

> On 3 Sep 2019, at 22.23, Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-core-senml-etch-05: No Objection
[...]
> I have a question and a few nits which might be worth addressing if you are
> making other edits:
> 
> Question:
> 1: The text in Section 4 feels quite hand-wavy / terse, and I don't think gives
> sufficient guidance to actually use this. e.g: What takes precedence? Do I
> refer to a specific record (using fragment identification) and then apply the
> FETCH / PATCH to that? Or do I use fragment identification to refer to records
> what have been PATCHed? As might be clear from the above, I'm not a CoRE
> person, so I'll be happy to accept "Your question makes no sense, this will be
> blindingly obvious to anyone who's actually implementing this...." :-)

As mentioned in my other email, this is now addressed here:
https://github.com/core-wg/senml-etch/pull/10

> Nits:
> 1:  Target Record:  A Record in a SenML Pack that is matching the
> s/is matching/matches/
> 
> 2: The names for a Fetch Pack are given using the SenML "name" and/or "base
> name" Fields. I *think* that in this case "fields" would be better than
> "Fields" - you seem to be using the term fields generically in this case.

Good catches! Also the SenML RFC uses "field" without capitalization so using that makes sense here. Both nits are addressed in this PR:
https://github.com/core-wg/senml-etch/pull/11/


Thanks,
Ari