Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20

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

Hi Ben,

We are working on finishing a reply to your thorough review, which we will
post tomorrow.

Regarding this comment, please see below.

On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 12:09 AM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:25:12AM -0400, Y. Richard Yang wrote:
> > Dear Elwyn,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for the review! Please see inline below.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 8:45 PM Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <
> > [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> > > Review result: Almost Ready
> > >
> > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> > > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> > > by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> > > like any other last call comments.
> > >
> > > For more information, please see the FAQ at
> > >
> > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> > >
> > > Document: draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20
> > > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> > > Review Date: 2020-03-09
> > > IETF LC End Date: 2020-03-06
> > > IESG Telechat date: 2020-03-12
> > >
> > > Summary:
> > > Almost ready.  There are a few editorial issues, but I am not sure that
> > >
> > > Major issues:
> > > I am unsure whether this mechanism is proof against loss of messages or
> > > reordering  of messags.  Although there are state tags, it does not
> appear
> > > to
> > > have any way to ensure that the state to which the updates will be
> applied
> > > in
> > > the client are identical to the state that the updates were generated
> > > from.  If
> > > I am wrong, it would be useful (IMO) to explain how the proposal avoids
> > > getting
> > > updates that don't apply to the state in the client.
> > >
> >
> > Good comment! A short answer is that the design should have no
> consistency
> > problems.
> >
> > More details:
> >
> > (1) This design is based on http/1.x as transport, which provides a
> single,
> > reliable, in-order serialization of update messages: m1, m2, m3, ...
> > The transport will guarantee that the messages will be delivered
> lossless,
> > in order.
>
> I did not remember getting the impression that it was required to use
> HTTP/1.x transport with this specification, as I attempted to note in my
> ballot, SSE is not HTTP/1.x-specific.  If the intent is to only allow the
> usage of HTTP/1.x with HTTP/2 (or HTTP/3) left to future work, I think that
> (e.g.) the end of Section 3.3 needs to be more explicit about this.


For the current design, one can use SSE with either http/1.x or http/2
transport, but the use of http/2 will not take advantage of essential
features of http/2 such as streams allowing more concurrent transmissions.
Hence, the plan is to finish http/1.x or more generally
single-serialization transport, and we will make it more explicit in the
document such as 3.3.

We will send an update to address your full review tomorrow.

Thank you so much!

Richard

>
>
> -Ben
>
-- 
Richard