Hi Alissa, Robert & Warren, Thank you for your reviews! You all had concerns on the Fragment ID part of the SenML etch draft (quotes below). I'll try to address those concerns in this PR: https://github.com/core-wg/senml-etch/pull/10 The suggested new Fragment ID section text would be: Fragment identification for Records of Fetch and Patch Packs uses the same mechanism as SenML JSON/CBOR fragment identification (see Section 9 of [RFC8428]), i.e., "rec" scheme followed by a comma- separated list of Record positions or range(s) of Records. For example, to select the 3rd and 5th Record of a Fetch or Patch Pack, a fragment identifier "rec=3,5" can be used in the URI of the Fetch or Patch Pack resource. More details below. > On 29 Aug 2019, at 17.38, Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > I am a little uncomfortable with the "Fragment Identification" section (4) of > this document - it feels like a "do what we mean" statement. I don't have text > to suggest. It may well be that it will be dead-obvious to an implementer what > to do, but it makes me uneasy. I was hoping it to be obvious since it is exactly the same mechanism as for regular SenML; just applied to another media type with the same structure. I'm a bit hesitant to add more normative text since that would be just repeating what's already said in the SenML RFC. Instead I'd suggest a short summary of the feature and an example (see above). Warren had a good observation that is wasn't clear to what Pack the ID applies to so I clarified that (see below). > On 3 Sep 2019, at 22.23, Warren Kumari via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > Question: > 1: The text in Section 4 feels quite hand-wavy / terse, and I don't think gives > sufficient guidance to actually use this. e.g: What takes precedence? Do I > refer to a specific record (using fragment identification) and then apply the > FETCH / PATCH to that? Or do I use fragment identification to refer to records > what have been PATCHed? As might be clear from the above, I'm not a CoRE > person, so I'll be happy to accept "Your question makes no sense, this will be > blindingly obvious to anyone who's actually implementing this...." :-) Actually this is a mechanism to refer to Records of the Patch/Fetch Pack, not in the resulting (regular SenML) Pack. I suggest clarifying this in the text with: OLD: Fragment identification is supported by analogously applying [...] NEW: Fragment identification for Records of Fetch and Patch Packs uses [...] I hope this solves your concerns. Thanks, Ari
