Subject: [alto] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 21:04:35 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20: 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-alto-incr-update-sse/

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

Just some very minor things here:

Please use the new BCP 14 boilerplate and add a normative reference to RFC 8174.

— Section 2 —
It’s a small thing, but in the first paragraph is it really useful to list the
terms, only to have each one defined right below?  My eye can instead run down
the paragraphs and catch the list of terms that way.

— Section 8 —
Just a note that I did not carefully review the examples.

— Section 12 —
Please add “Fragment identifier considerations” to the templates, as required
by RFC 6838.  It would also not be a bad idea to separate the two templates
with whitespace or a text paragraph, for readability.

---

From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:36:14 -0400

Dear Barry,

Thanks for the review. Please see inline.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse/
I am using a standard .xml file, and when I compare the xml2rfc output with
the recent RFCs (e.g., RFC 8710, standard track), I do see the difference.
Thanks for catching it and we will fix.

> the paragraphs and catch the list of terms that way.
The list in the paragraph could serve as a "checksum", but it is indeed
quite close by and removing redundancy is a better principle than
"checksum". We will remove.

> Just a note that I did not carefully review the examples.
OK.

> with whitespace or a text paragraph, for readability.
Good suggestion. We will add Fragment identifier considerations” to the
templates; add RFC 6838 in the Section (RFC 6838 is already a normative
reference, but we will add a sentence to refer to it in Sec. 12). Yes we
will add whitespace for better readability.

Thanks again!

Richard

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 18:53:06 -0400

Thanks, RIchard, for the quick response and for addressing my comments.

Barry

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 4:36 PM Y. Richard Yang <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:04 AM Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
> I am using a standard .xml file, and when I compare the xml2rfc output with the recent RFCs (e.g., RFC 8710, standard track), I do see the difference. Thanks for catching it and we will fix.
>
>>
>> — Section 2 —
> The list in the paragraph could serve as a "checksum", but it is indeed quite close by and removing redundancy is a better principle than "checksum". We will remove.
>
>
>>
>> — Section 8 —
> Good suggestion. We will add Fragment identifier considerations” to the templates; add RFC 6838 in the Section (RFC 6838 is already a normative reference, but we will add a sentence to refer to it in Sec. 12). Yes we will add whitespace for better readability.
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Richard
>
>