[Rum] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-rum-rue-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 15 December 2021 12:37 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rum@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rum@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B7C3A0FBE; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 04:37:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-rum-rue@ietf.org, rum-chairs@ietf.org, rum@ietf.org, pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu, pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.41.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <163957183657.10054.2789790212865898062@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 04:37:17 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rum/Z8oWWQ7h_ZfZ2pXqYPU4LyhW4OI>
Subject: [Rum] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-rum-rue-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: rum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Relay User Machine <rum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rum>, <mailto:rum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rum/>
List-Post: <mailto:rum@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rum-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rum>, <mailto:rum-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 12:37:18 -0000
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rum-rue-09: Discuss 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rum-rue/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- There are a couple of points related to versioning that I would like to see clarified, but I hope that it should be fairly easy to do so. 1. This means an implementation of a specific major version and minor version is backwards compatible with all minor versions of the major version. Is it actually compatible with all other minor versions, or only other minor versions with a greater minor version number. E.g., could an implementation be coded to use/expect a object added in a minor version but that is not present in preceding minor versions? 2. The configuration API also provides the same version mechanism as specified above in Section 9.1. The version of the configuration service MAY be different than the version of the provider list service. It wasn't obvious to me, that for a given provider, how this is communicated. I'm not that familiar with OpenAPI, but looks like the /Versions path is a top level API path, and the data that is contains seems to just be version numbers. Hence, how would a client know which versions apply to provider list service and/or which versions apply to the provide configuration service. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Brian, Thank you for working on this. This technology is quite a long way outside of my expertise, and hence my review is primarily focused on the Configuration section (section 9). Nit: when used with the following interface => when used with the following OpenAPI interface Nit: with a corresponding a entry point -> with a corresponding entry point Minor version definitions SHALL only add objects, non-required members of existing objects, and non-mandatory-to use functions and SHALL NOT delete any objects, members of objects or functions. Would "delete or change" be more correct than just "delete" here? Somewhat related to the discuss comment, but it wasn't clear to me why the versioning is described as part of the "Rue Provider Selection" section and I think that the document would arguably be clearer if the versioning moved to its own separate 9.X section, making it clear that the versioning applies to the entire API? Nit: The method the API Key is obtained is not specified in this document. => Perhaps "The method used to obtain the API key ..." The provider MAY refuse to provide service to an implementation presenting an API Key it does not recognize. Why is this not a MUST? Is the "instance-identifier" arbitrarily chosen by the client? Otherwise, it wasn't clear to me how a client would discover or know what "instance-identifier" to use. It might be helpful if the text clarified this, and possibly even the parameter name could be changed to make it more obvious that it is a client provided value? Regards, Rob
- [Rum] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-rum-r… Robert Wilton via Datatracker
- Re: [Rum] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-r… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rum] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-r… Brian Rosen
- Re: [Rum] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-r… Rob Wilton (rwilton)