Subject: [core] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-senml-etch-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 12:22:58 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-core-senml-etch-05: 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-core-senml-etch/

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

Firstly, thank you for writing this, and also thanks to Carlos Pignataro for
the OpsDir review.

I have a question and a few nits which might be worth addressing if you are
making other edits:

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...." :-)

Nits:
1:  Target Record:  A Record in a SenML Pack that is matching the
s/is matching/matches/

2: The names for a Fetch Pack are given using the SenML "name" and/or "base
name" Fields. I *think* that in this case "fields" would be better than
"Fields" - you seem to be using the term fields generically in this case.

---

From: Ari Keränen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 16:18:15 +0000

Thank you once more for your review Warren! See answers and fix suggestions below.

> On 3 Sep 2019, at 22.23, Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
[...]
> blindingly obvious to anyone who's actually implementing this...." :-)

As mentioned in my other email, this is now addressed here:
https://github.com/core-wg/senml-etch/pull/10

> "Fields" - you seem to be using the term fields generically in this case.

Good catches! Also the SenML RFC uses "field" without capitalization so using that makes sense here. Both nits are addressed in this PR:
https://github.com/core-wg/senml-etch/pull/11/

Thanks,
Ari

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:28:30 -0400

Awesome, thank you for addressing my comments.

W

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 12:18 PM Ari Keränen <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Good catches! Also the SenML RFC uses "field" without capitalization so
> using that makes sense here. Both nits are addressed in this PR:
> --
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf