Subject: Re: [core] What's the status of the "observe" doc after IESG Evaluation?

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:27:48 +0200

Barry Leiba wrote:
> Have you gone through these comments, addressed them, and evaluated
> which ones should result in some minor document changes and which
> shouldn't (and why)?

There are a number of "nice to have" comments that probably would make
good material for draft-ietf-lwig-coap-01.txt.  Adding the additional
text to the normative document, however, adds the risk of opening up
additional avenues of misunderstanding, which makes us believe the
lwig document is the better target.

   Barry > Adrian's comment asking for clarification in Section 3.1.
   Adrian [3] > That's nicely explained. Add it to the draft?

(See "nice to have", above.)

   Barry > Adrian's comment about the "MAY" in Section 3.3.1 (looks like
   it shouldn't be a 2119 "MAY").
   Adrian [3] > Yes. Nice. Could also add something like "...as generally
   allowed in a CoAP implementation [RFC7252]..."

(See "nice to have", above.)

   Barry > Adrian's comment about Section 3.5 (clarify "eventually",
   perhaps with "after repeated failures to confirm", or some such).
   Adrian [3] > OK

(See "nice to have", above.)

   Barry > Kathleen's comment asking that you mention 7252 Section 9 as
   well as 7252 Section 11 in the Security Considerations.
   Kathleen [4] > Thank you, that looks great!

Done.

   Barry > Martin's comment asking for a forward reference to Section
   4.5.1 in Section 1.4.
   Martin [5] > Do you mind adding a reference at the end of Section 1.4
   to Section 4.5.1?

The text has been polished a bit [6].  We don't think that adding the
section reference would be in place in 1.4, which is still very much
at a level of basic exposition.

   Barry > Pete's various comments.

Whoops, the comments submitted [7] never made it into an e-mail, so
there never was an e-mail exchange about them.  We just sent separate
mail answering these comments.  No changes to the text are required,
though (with, again, maybe some material for lwig-coap resulting).

   Barry > Richard's various comments.
   Richard [8] > I would suggest something like the following at the top
   of Section 2:

(The suggested text just provides some information about the data type
earlier, now somewhat redundantly with what's there already.  I think
the author is right that this isn't needed.)

   Richard [8] > If so, you should really constrain the space to be 0/1

(Done.)

   Richard [8] > Overall, this section is fine.  I would just suggest
   clarifying that sentence, in terms of how it assumes time maps to
   serial numbers.

(Done.)

This should be the complete list of comment items still open.

Thanks again to Klaus for diligently handling these items.

Grüße, Carsten

   [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core/current/msg05658.html
   [4] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core/current/msg05657.html
   [5] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core/current/msg05537.html
   [6] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core/current/msg05651.html
   [7]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-observe/ballot/#pete-resnick
   [8] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core/current/msg05734.html

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:29:02 -0300

Thanks for all that (below).  And, so, the currently posted draft
reflects all the changes, and you're happy that it's ready to go to
the RFC Editor?

Barry

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:37:36 +0200

> reflects all the changes, and you're happy that it's ready to go to

There is always one more thing, sorry.

Can you please add this RFC editor note:

At the end of Section 3.5:
OLD:
   observers.
NEW:
   observers (Section 4.5).

Apart from that: Yes, and yes.

Grüße, Carsten