Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-09

[Joe Clarke <[e-mail]>]

On 5/10/16 17:51, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> s1, para 2: s/describes use cases/describe use cases/

Fixed.

>
> s5.2, Event ID:
>> An event can be a Client authenticating with the Agent, a Client to
>> Agent operation, or a Client disconnecting from an Agent.
> This is a good thing, but I am not sure that the format provides a way
> to identify the authentication and disconnection events.

The intent was that these would be Operations (i.e., AUTHENTICATE 
CLIENT, DISCONNECT CLIENT).  There is nothing in the text that precludes 
this.  We can explicitly state this.

>
> s5.2, Starting Timestamp:
> [I don't understand 'three points of prevision'.] Maybe...
> OLD:
> Given that many I2RS operations can occur in rapid succession, the use
> of fractional seconds MUST be used to provide adequate granularity.
> Fractional seconds SHOULD be expressed with at least three points of
> prevision in second.microsecond format.
> NEW:
> Given that many I2RS operations can occur in rapid succession, the
> fractional seconds element of the timestamp MUST be used to provide
> adequate granularity.  Fractional seconds SHOULD be expressed with at
> least three [or more?] significant digits in second.microsecond format.
> END

Changed.

>
> s5.2, Ending Timestamp:
> See the comments on the Starting Timestamp - though I think you could
> just refer to the words in the Starting Timestamp and avoid duplication.

Done.

>
> s7.4/s7.4.3: Given that the I2RS pub-sub access method is
> mandatory-to-implement, i think I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements has
> to be a Normative Reference.

Changed.

See the new text at 
https://www.marcuscom.com/draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability.txt-from-09-10.diff.html 
.

Thanks again for the review!

Joe