Re: [alto] WG adoption call for draft-schott-alto-new-transport-01

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I've read this draft and it is clearly in scope as it targets one of
the WG's milestones. I think it is a reasonable starting point for this
work and should be adopted. (I presume that a separate document will
address the second half of the milestone, namely HTTP/3.)

I wish we would all get into the habit of running idnits on our drafts.
We should especially do that before putting our drafts up for adoption.
So I hope we can tidy this up before this becomes a WG draft.

There is also another simple format thing that should be sorted out at
the same time:

- The Requirements language needs to be moved from the front page down
  into a new Section 1.1

I also have some review comments that can be addressed before or after
adoption according to the whim of the authors.

Cheers,
Adrian


---

I'm not clear about the requirements in Section 2.

You need to be careful to word the requirements as requirements. R5 and
R6 currently look like statements about the design choices that were
made.

Some of these requirements can be classed as "ALTO/H2 must support all
of the functions of the ALTO base protocol" (R0, R5). That's fine.

R6 is the "obvious" requirement for this document.

R7 is a reasonable new requirement, especially if there is a question
of negotiating between base ALTO and ALTO/H2. However, I couldn't
immediately find anywhere in the document that discusses this
requirement.

Actually, it would be nice if the text in the document could provide
traceability back to the requirements.

I can't decide whether requirements R1, R2, R3, and R4 are additional
new features being introduced:
- as a side effect of moving to HTTP/2
- additional functions that are really needed to support moving to
  HTTP/2
- additional functions being "slipped in" at the same as the work of
  moving to HTTP/2
Obviously, the answer to this will colour whether I think these
requirements (and the bits of the solution that address them) belong in
this document.

---

Is Figure 3 missing, or is the figure the work flow set out above?

---

Somewhere in the document (at the latest, the top of Section 4.1) you
need the (rather obvious) statement that you are using the adaptation of
the C-style struct notation defined in RFC 7285.

---

I suggest that Section 10 should at least reference RFC 7540 for the
security properties of HTTP/2. 

---

Section 11 could be a little clearer about what action IANA is being
asked to take on which registry.

======

> Hi folks,
>
> This begins a 2 week WG Adoption Call for the following draft:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schott-alto-new-transport/
>
> Please indicate your support or objections by June 15th, 2022.
>
> Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware
> of any IPR that applies to this draft.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Qin/Med