Ballot for draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
I agree with Benoit about versioning (point #3).
I support Ben's and Stephen's DISCUSSes.
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
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENT.
I support Stephen's discuss points.
Thanks for the discussion!