[Id-event] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-11: (with COMMENT)

[Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-secevent-http-poll/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

I found that document easy to read/understand (despite not really knowing what
"SET"s are).  However, I did have a query about the algorithm:

It seems to me that if a client fails to acknowledge a SET (e.g. due to a bug,
or perhaps a message is lost) then it has to wait until the server times out
waiting for the SET acknowledgement before the server hopefully resends it.

However, I would normally expect that a client should automatically acknowledge
all SETs in the order that it receives them because it doesn't seem to have a
good reason not to do so.  Hence, I was wondering whether it would be useful to
have an option to allow clients to request that the next "maxEvents" SETs also
include any unacknowledged SETs?  This would allow clients to potentially
recover lost SETs more quickly and more robustly?  I.e. for the case where a
client expects to acknowledge all existing received SETs before/when requesting
more.

Regards,
Rob