1.7 KiB
1.7 KiB
Review Synthesis
Blocking findings
- Add an explicit authorization-decision requirement before acting on rollback requests. The security review correctly identifies this as the biggest missing control.
- Tighten replay handling by linking idempotency, request identity, and stale-request rejection into one interoperable rule.
- Add one concrete non-normative flow example and a compact transition table. The software review is right that the draft is still too abstract for two independent implementations.
Major findings
- Clarify whether the document is an abstract protocol model or only event vocabulary. The architecture review recommends choosing the former in a bounded way.
- Specify minimum disclosure rules for partial-success, irreversible, and refused outcomes so downstream agents can react safely.
- Clarify rollback-scope representation at the abstract level: what a rollback set minimally contains and how direct versus transitive scope is reported.
- Improve the abstract and introduction to frame the interoperability problem more directly.
Minor findings
- Tighten terminology definitions into more RFC-like form.
- Clarify the coordinator role or remove it if not needed in this revision.
- Clarify the cancellation boundary.
- Reduce placeholder feel in References and dependency text.
Conflicts resolved
- No meaningful reviewer conflict exists on scope. All reviewers favor keeping the document narrow.
- The only tension is between remaining carrier-agnostic and becoming implementable. Resolution: keep the model carrier-agnostic, but add one non-normative example and stronger abstract structure rather than binding to a specific substrate in v1.