Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-15.txt (8/2 to 8/15)

[Joe Clarke <[e-mail]>]

On 8/2/16 09:18, Susan Hares wrote:
> This begins a 2 week WG LC on draft-i2rs-ephemeral-state-15.txt.  This
> draft received a “hum” of consensus at IETF 96, and we are now taking
> the final text to a WG Last Call.  Please send your comments on the
> requirements to the WG list.

I think this is good.  A general comment I have is that "ephemeral 
state" is used in a number of places where I think "ephemeral 
configuration" should be used.  This may be a nit, but the device has 
one state that is dictated by the various configuration types and the 
operational state.  This was raised in BA in the meetings as well.

My recommendation is to replace "ephemeral state" with "ephemeral 
configuration".   It's not a show-stopper the way it is, but I think the 
latter is a bit clearer.

One nit I notice is a mixed use of Client/client Agent/agent.  Per the 
last round of RFCs, we are normalizing on client and agent (lowercase).

Section 7, bullet 2:  This text reads strangely:

OLD TEXT:

The I2RS protocol MUST support the
       ability to have data nodes MAY store I2RS client identity and not
       the effective priority of the I2RS client at the time the data
       node is stored.

PROPOSED NEW TEXT:

The I2RS protocol MUST support the ability to have data nodes store I2RS 
client identity and not the effective priority of the I2RS client at the 
time the data node is stored.

Section 8: I2RS is written "I2SR"

Section 8: This text is odd

OLD TEXT:

multiple operations in one or more messages handling can handle
       errors within the set of operations in many ways.

I'm stumped.  This doesn't read as a requirement per se.  Yes, the I2RS 
protocol can support multiple operations within one message or multiple 
messages.  Based on the fact that atomicity is not provided, an error in 
one message will have no effect on other messages, even if they are 
related.  So maybe:

PROPOSED NEW TEXT:

multiple operations in one or more messages; though errors in one 
message or operation will have no effect on other messages or commands 
even if they are related

Section 9:

OLD TEXT:

requirements SHOULD be understood to be expanded to to include

NEW TEXT:

requirements SHOULD be understood to be expanded to include

Joe