Requirements for Subscription to YANG Datastores
draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-09
Yes
(Alia Atlas)
No Objection
(Alvaro Retana)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -06)
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-05-04 for -06)
Unknown
I agree with Benoit about versioning (point #3).
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-05-04 for -06)
Unknown
I support Ben's and Stephen's DISCUSSes.
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-05-16 for -08)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS points. The comments below are from my initial ballot. I think you've probably addressed most of them, but I am leaving them for reference: - General: I support Stephen's DISCUSS -2.2: What is the real scope of this work? Is it expected to supplant the mentioned mechanisms? - 2.3: "We need a new pub-sub technology" The shepherd write up mentioned a goal to use existing technologies. Is the point of this sentence to suggest that is not feasible? - 4.1, 4th paragraph: The MAY doesn't seem right--is this a statement of fact that the subscriber may have to resubscribe, or a requirement of the form that the service MAY force the subscriber to resubscribe? (Be careful with MAYs in requirements language--they imply unexpected things. For example, several requirements say a SUBSCRIBE MAY do something--do those imply that the service MUST allow the subscriber to do it ?) -- 4.2.2, third bullet: The previous section said dampening periods MUST be supported. - 4.2.1, third paragraph: This is a bit ambiguous. I think it means to change the what subtrees the subscription applies to, but could be interpreted to change the subtrees themselves. - 4.2.6.4: Would a mechanism that allowed out-of-order delivery but gave the subscriber a way to reconstruct the order fulfill this requirement? Nits: - The shepherd write up suggests this is standards track. The draft and tracker both say informational. Please update the shepherd writ up. -3, last paragraph: What's the difference between a "Push" and an "Update"? -4.1: A forward reference to the subscription QoS section would be helpful. -- Last paragraph, last sentence: Sentence doesn't parse. - 4.2.8, third paragraph: I don't think that should be a 2119 MAY
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-05-18)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENT.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-05-04 for -06)
Unknown
I support Stephen's discuss points.
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-05-17)
Unknown
Thanks for the discussion!
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown