From nobody Sun Feb 28 14:10:02 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FC323A0890 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:09:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ackl-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 kvEsJUTrV-AI for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:09:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr1-x435.google.com (mail-wr1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::435]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EB213A08A7 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:09:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-x435.google.com with SMTP id f12so10296773wrx.8 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:09:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ackl-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MXBInk2549oS/oW95CjrCm79vfMSB5D09yKAgUDRAlM=; b=GJ7NRgJ7aL24qiw2hz4PKMPF1ZNAkMA97A78UPVT8pVJdT/rCWQSEE2s5jp1rdrJgi JKfIhZ7npH2sKsEvbAALL1eKB8/emtR/R5Jdjx7YFnUWB0shv7u6oQJCEo8T6TD9b/gL Tuu2hm1/WNvpGoFKV+kojmDQDqXCPOtnM2JyvDEF/GuD4T2iCJZ/WrS8/smHDdu0+dqb 4Tbq7vm7eh4uoipw8pWc8LQO0AjOJ/eLRQTkDiD2dvfi71Uv5go6PlfSZ/zX3ZZxF2Xg Y+qYDqTe8HafIUdDqjHQiI1MdZGkbnQhTvf5i1jIi/6ClaZI+hts++j0ItGAGwdrxP4/ VOng== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MXBInk2549oS/oW95CjrCm79vfMSB5D09yKAgUDRAlM=; b=ADW6ON29ssAnfEgjaWmeiunJXvtghvSAksT7F7mt//cdr3luTzVaF7EwFcly/YQ4L7 h0XRXtB13E30aq8InReajlmluaOp4v+PusAH6+AaM1qhJQQt2jQvEet/4FBeblliBspF 66dd1zSgaaZxfqyFnBFCfzAeJWA8dbx5hD8kTnZycTwsAJyiEhlV5uvbnUoCVHn+8v04 pVFAhTkOvoA/XuG701+Uknly1YI2GLbsiVRGz37XrCET3D9BrP3cO8w3jyP3Z+41WtZo 66i3ZXqczqkx6TVgRupYcN6aAaEiZFNRv7+XM2MwBwO8BUHOe+BnJ9Oih3SazeHxOHnB JjkQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533eirQ1Gn8rwbYSB5Hi0SbFHfCRn4O6SuF3Nr56SfywvUcZqkai 3mfOGrysC9j+mzzfr3Qw6UFqnllb7FzbLK1dzWd5fG9/JvG9oQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxSC/4mirZN+e76GSjxpfsMNWqAw/LYuXiix8xsm4pH1EHRXV2R0ZI9+t2hPwL9AIg311bJCXxJyFvgHgEZU+A= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4203:: with SMTP id n3mr13396821wrq.116.1614550191658; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:09:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <63510607-74A6-4218-BE87-10EC6F4ACB38@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: <63510607-74A6-4218-BE87-10EC6F4ACB38@tzi.org> From: Ivaylo Petrov Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 23:09:25 +0100 Message-ID: To: "core@ietf.org WG (core@ietf.org)" Cc: NetMod WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [core] draft-ietf-core-comi-11 shepherd review X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 22:09:56 -0000 Hello Carsten, Thank you for your review! Please find my answers below (prefixed with [IP]= ). Best regards, Ivaylo On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 3:28 PM Carsten Bormann wrote: > > Please note an interesting discussion over at netmod. > > Archived-At: and up. > > It seems we a converging to a conclusion that means that the table at the= top of page 14 in draft-ietf-core-comi-11.txt [1] is not wrong (it would m= ake certain updates of a YANG module a non-backwards compatible change in t= he way we build URIs from that). > > [1]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-core-comi-11#page-14 > > That said, maybe we still want to look at why uint and int coding are so = (unnecessarily?) different in their URL encodings. [IP]: It sounds better to me to harmonize this. I will try to see if any of the other authors have specific reasons not to do that. > > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > > > > > On 2021-02-04, at 05:47, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > > > In my shepherd review of draft-ietf-core-comi-11, I have found a few po= ints that probably need some WG action before we can submit this draft to I= ESG. > > (I also have submitted a PR addressing some nits, https://github.com/co= re-wg/comi/pull/1 .) > > > > Specifically: > > > > # Major > > > > *** 5: This whole section is rather disappointing. What does this > > really do except for pointing at RFC 7959? Is there any > > recommendation in how to work around the race condition? The > > recommendation to use indefinite length is not solving any problem > > (does not work except in very fortuitous cases). > > > > *** 6.2.2 How does the pagination work, then? > > This SHOULD is not actionable. > > *** 7: This creates confusion between 4.01 and 4.03 > > > > # Minor > > > > *** 2.2: While it is not clear whether there will be a SID 0, the text > > seems to imply that this would be encoded in the empty string. > > Should it rather specify a single "A=E2=80=9D? > > > > *** Appendix A: Updated to reference RFC 8949 (see PR). > > Do we need a new module version after this edit? > > > > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > core mailing list > core@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core