[Gen-art] Re: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-18 ietf last call Genart review

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

Brian, please also change "replaces" as I suggested in my email sent on 
June 15th, or in some other way.

--Randall

On 23 Jun 2026, at 11:42, Brian Rosen wrote:

> Joel
>
> Thank you for your review
>
> I clearly need to improve the wording.
>
> The client can’t tell the order of ChangeSets from the IDs.  The 
> server can.   Two examples: the Ids are literally incrementing 
> numbers, and alternatively the IDs are a hash of an incrementing 
> number.  The server creates the Ids, so it knows, in both cases.  The 
> client could figure it out in the first case, but it couldn’t in the 
> second case.
>
> So, I have to ask, what wording suggested to you that the client can 
> figure out the order from the IDs?
>
> To be sure, it really doesn’t matter if the client knows the order: 
> it’s just dumb - it sends the last ID it got, and asks if there are 
> any newer ones.  The server knows, and returns any IDs that are newer 
> than the ID sent in the poll.  If there weren’t any, the client uses 
> the same ID in the next poll.  If there were, it gets new IDs in 
> response to the poll and uses the last one it got for the next poll.
>
> When the client retrieves the ChangeSets from the server, they have 
> the effective dates in them, so the client knows what order to apply 
> them.
>
> Brian
>
>
>> On Jun 21, 2026, at 8:21 PM, Joel Halpern via Datatracker 
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes
>> Title: Validation of Locations Around a Planned Change
>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>> 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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ> .
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-18
>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>> Review Date: 2026-06-21
>> IETF LC End Date: 2026-06-30
>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>>
>> Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed 
>> Standard
>>
>> Major issues:
>>    At the veyr least, the description of the relationship between 
>> ChangeSetID
>>    and Ordering is confusing.  If I have read it right, it is 
>> internally
>>    inconsistent.  At appears to be the itnent that the client can 
>> determine
>>    from two ChangeSetIds which one is older,  And a server can 
>> determine from
>>    a ChangeSetId what Change Sets are newer than the given one.  The 
>> latter
>>    can in principle be achieved by the server storing and using 
>> timestamps
>>    locally in addition to the ChangeSetIds.  It is possible that the 
>> intention
>>    is that clients do not determine ordering from the ChangeSetIds, 
>> (The
>>    middle of the third paragraph of the introduction says "IDs are 
>> ordered so
>>    that changes can be completed in the correct order.")
>>
>> Minor issues: N/A
>>
>> Nits/editorial comments: N/A
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ecrit mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]