Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review result: Almost Ready I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20 Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 2020-03-09 IETF LC End Date: 2020-03-06 IESG Telechat date: 2020-03-12 Summary: Almost ready. There are a few editorial issues, but I am not sure that Major issues: I am unsure whether this mechanism is proof against loss of messages or reordering of messags. Although there are state tags, it does not appear to have any way to ensure that the state to which the updates will be applied in the client are identical to the state that the updates were generated from. If I am wrong, it would be useful (IMO) to explain how the proposal avoids getting updates that don't apply to the state in the client. Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: Abstract: the abstract is too long; I would suggest deleting the second sentence of the first paragraph and the whole of the second paragraph. Ths would leave sufficient information to explain what the document proposes but omits the rationale which is not necessary for outlining the contents. The deleted text would be usefully incorporated into s1. Abstract, para 3: s/s ction/section/ s1: The key role of Server-Sent Events in this proposal is not introduced here (and isn't mentioned in the Abstract). In the process SSE needs to be expanded on first use (currently right at the end of the section) and a pointer to the document that defines SSE [SSE] s1, last para: The reference to Section 13 should come right at the end - and the last two sections are (no longer) the last sectons: s/last two sections/Sections 11 and 12/ s2 et seq: I am unsure of the rationale for defining a set of special terms and not capitalizing them on every occurrence. s2: There is quite a lot of terminology imported from RFC 7285 . This should be mentioned. s3: A pointer to the SSE document would be useful [SSE]. s3.4: It would be better to use the expanded form of SSE in the first paragraph rather than waiting till the 2nd para. s4: An explanation in advance of the format of the lines delineated by **.... ** would be desirable. s5.1, next to last para: s/ So there is no ambiguous decoding/ So there is no ambiguity when decoding/ s5.1, last para: s/id/data-id/ s6.3, last para: s/will uses/will use/ s6,5, "incremental changes": s/Section Section6.3/Section 6.3/ s6.5, "remove": Stating that the client SHOULD ignore this if it present is potentially problematic. If it is there it is a syntax error - should the message be ignored and potentailly flagged as an error? s7.6, last para: s/our modular/the modular/ s13/s13.1:Empty sections are not desirable Please combine the two titles and remove s13.1 . -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
