Subject: [CDNi] Alexey Melnikov's Yes on draft-ietf-cdni-control-triggers-14: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 08:55:22 -0700

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cdni-control-triggers-14: Yes

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-cdni-control-triggers/

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

Thank you for addressing my earlier comments.

Regarding my earlier change: Media type: should it have +json suffix? Is
the currently defined media type deployed?

 -- I didn't realize that application/cdni is already registered with
IANA by RFC 7736. So this comment doesn't apply and should revert this
change. I am sorry about that!

---

From: "Murray, Rob (Nokia - GB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 14:13:16 +0000

>draft-ietf-cdni-control-triggers-14: Yes

Thanks Alexey - no problem on the "+json", that's what search & replace is for! I've published a "-15" with that change.

Francois/Kevin - I think all the review comments against this draft are cleared now.
 
Rob

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 15:47:21 +0100

Hi Rob,

On Thu, May 19, 2016, at 03:13 PM, Murray, Rob (Nokia - GB) wrote:
> Thanks Alexey - no problem on the "+json", that's what search & replace
> is for! I've published a "-15" with that change.
> 

Ben needs to check the new text about TLS, which I think is addressed
now.

I don't know if you ever replied to the following question from Ben:

 "I assume I am missing something here. How does a surrogate know that
 the situation exists in the first place? How would a surrogate know
 about invalidate commands that happened while it was offline?"

The text in question is:

      A CI/T "invalidate" command may be reported as "complete" when
      surrogates that may have the data are offline.  In this case,
      surrogates MUST NOT use the affected data without first
      revalidating it when they are back online.

---

From: "Murray, Rob (Nokia - GB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 14:59:53 +0000

>      revalidating it when they are back online.

I replied in this email ...

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/nPz4CuJXuxk5dXhEP2n-gtcx7Ag

... but there not been any follow-up. So you're right, Ben's comments aren't cleared yet. Sorry.

Rob.