Re: [netmod] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-09: (with COMMENT)

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Wed, 10 January 2018 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1799E129C6D; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:07:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id It00cwn0YVPA; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:07:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de (atlas5.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E59531200C5; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:07:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F3169A; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:07:06 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.217]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id w44Pe2RqAjWm; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:07:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "Jacobs University CA - G01" (verified OK)) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:07:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9569F2013E; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:07:06 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LSe20vTIRMNj; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:07:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from elstar.local (unknown [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 632F52013D; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:07:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1C75A420A491; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:07:04 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:07:04 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores@ietf.org, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180110170704.5vyuvbiz2vg6h3vh@elstar.local>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores@ietf.org, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
References: <151555382321.21465.10788231800400955949.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <151555382321.21465.10788231800400955949.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/2RERkNt9I5X8PA9PqjgvAi9qmvU>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:07:10 -0000

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:10:23PM -0800, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-09: 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-netmod-revised-datastores/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (1) Please add a sentence to the Introduction explaining how this document
> updates rfc7950.  I know that a couple of sections explicitly indicate what
> part of rfc7950 they update, but having a short summary at the beginning would
> be nice.
> 
> (2) Section 3 says: “It is expected that the revised definitions provided in
> this section will replace the definitions in [RFC6241] and [RFC7950] when these
> documents are revised.”  Why not formally Update those documents here?  [See my
> note above about the Update to rfc7950.]

The formal 'update of RFC 7950' is driven by the sections 6.1 and 6.2
and not so much to the terminology section. While we expect that the
terminology wording will be harmonized in a future revision of RFC
7950, this does not seem to require a formal update of RFC 7950 at
this point in time (since the definitions are semantically
equivalent).

So back to the abstract: We could be more explicit by saying:

  This document updates the definition of the XPath context and the
  invocation context of operations in RFC 7950.

Personally, I think this makes the abstract harder to read. Perhaps a
better solution is to leave the abstract as is and to add this one
sentence paragraph to the Introduction (before the key words
boilerplate text).

  This document updates RFC 7950 by refining the definition of the
  accessible tree for some XPath context (see Section 6.1) and the
  invocation context of operations (see Section 6.2).
 
> (3) s/Section 4.4 of this document/Section 4.4 of rfc6244

Yes, this is better.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>