[drinks] Your DISCUSS on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework

Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at> Tue, 24 March 2015 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>
X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 326111A8AD6 for <drinks@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.741
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.741 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4E_ltw7qiBMv for <drinks@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sbg.nic.at (mail.sbg.nic.at []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0620D1A8BBE for <drinks@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nics-exch2.sbg.nic.at ([]) by mail.sbg.nic.at over TLS secured channel (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) with XWall v3.50 ; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:54:22 +0100
Received: from NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at ([fe80::a5b2:6e42:e54d:9d57]) by NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at ([fe80::a5b2:6e42:e54d:9d57%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:54:17 +0100
From: Alexander Mayrhofer <alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at>
To: "Alissa Cooper (alissa@cooperw.in)" <alissa@cooperw.in>
Thread-Topic: Your DISCUSS on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework
Thread-Index: AdBmSWiBAI4E5ppeSrC1mWbCaE5n8Q==
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:54:16 +0000
Message-ID: <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE07546785F25@NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: de-DE
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/drinks/TjQ2u8aTsKFdCVSYjku19kTJgZI>
Cc: "drinks@ietf.org" <drinks@ietf.org>
Subject: [drinks] Your DISCUSS on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework
X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG <drinks.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/drinks>, <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/drinks/>
List-Post: <mailto:drinks@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks>, <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:54:27 -0000

Hello Alissa,

You raised a DISCUSS on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework during the IESG review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ballot/#alissa-cooper), as well as some other comments:

Regarding the DISCUSS:

You are of course right - we had originally the "Create" as well as the "Modify" operation, and found out over the course of the development of the protocol that a "modify" would be much easier implemented if the "Add" operation would simply allow for overwriting / replacing the currently existing object.

We will change the document as follows:

- Change all instances of "Create" operation to "Add" operation
- Remove all instances of "Modify" operation
- Add text to the draft that clarifies in a single sentence that objects can by modified by simply overwriting them with an "Add" operation.

Does this address your DISCUSS so that you can clear?

Regarding your other comments:

= Section 3.3 =
What does "RFC level document" mean? RFC? Or perhaps you want to use the
"permanent and readily available" standard from RFC 5226?

-> The intention was that such extensions shall be RFCs. We will change the text accordingly. 

= Section 5.2.1 =
s/SPPF object that/SPPF object/

-> Will change accordingly, thanks for spotting this.

= Section 5.2.2 =
s/Refer the "Framework Data Model Objects"/Refer to the "Framework Data Model

-> Thanks, will change that.

= Section 6 =
s/refer the "Framework Operations"/refer to the "Framework Operations"/

-> same, will change in text.

We will probably roll those changes into a new revision of the document, and i hope to submit this asap. However, does the information above suffice so that you can clear your DISCUSS? We're in the process of shutting down the WG, so this would be highly appreciated.

[and i hope all is well with you !! ]