Re: [alto] Finalizing draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto
Jensen Zhang <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com> Wed, 08 January 2020 14:10 UTC
Return-Path: <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC2A120821; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 06:10:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.246
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.246 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Yh2lF-Itlma; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 06:10:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb2e.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CF5C120127; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 06:10:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb2e.google.com with SMTP id f136so1480459ybg.11; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 06:10:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zmnVjQWMR0uQbkPkzZwevMGxfSiXUfPtWlq9Vp9QnAY=; b=fCRReh3GBNhksIXEj5oRWkJ5N4gCpWwlGR31YRv8jMFn9Wb4+EU/bTqbykuVBHyg4Y +UlHA0QHK1OZaU+kejj86sw6vbXzzM3mebiEpyW656508Rm98Q0qERTgnUVHhP7aBxZe 6N1tOXGSLaHocFNuscnxMYSpb9iPYhgnvzgbXF3KxcGD/lCk5EzdTnP5NQ96Qc9J2MIp q8nP07rLVN8n/xwt1wadMidAOGU7hzI10oX5EVy+7tvyYBFU6DhaS7ErOayJ7kBf+34U 7wO3UAJXxYyb7hxUkVB2LvuqPIPYvs3xpdLaZIDCEly8v8pjrKV7hGPNRAgGaSXPQc6C 27IA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zmnVjQWMR0uQbkPkzZwevMGxfSiXUfPtWlq9Vp9QnAY=; b=pjVXO6aci9z/CGlYlPanHAT507Xx32SKhQ4U3JRDCEp911fBve9jLgF2gUjEx3l0yP ZfTEsGhmUaDejrzsdzkqftHx3aTrIr4mBgCl6AGEZO3bHH6RqpLeSVf7a3P6mGagpR8/ v/d9Ix5ZjerPTHTXlsGb2O+PezFZMODL+43JoU+gdC8dtctLlErN1SGD7mVa0LVXYfoC 9XN0BqO/qZ+NGXwdOehsrvdXNMidHoMOPTDuw2hKHWGi12y/v2weBU6vjZdRq17OutNW mYehWnAhc0N7gg9LbLpELRWKWGp+Dr1YMDEdfI/K2fU423jIslC9jo17zQkdb1UFG++e jOpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWwmllmt4GFVbDALd4BLfUd+J+kVHtMhW9Kvij8cnCq72jft+9G NFXddYhCTA0ccfcplIbfySNePhQXo8plZsaXWzf7T4U9
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw+dQ1vkidNGz5GmSc9mW2Pj09cdcCXFQ0JedBnFtAMAXbYmb1NJyrtQ9w2raqSvNhyyE2N1GWNPguN+MsRpVw=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d109:: with SMTP id i9mr3410607ybg.46.1578492599203; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 06:09:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <f24f7e19-0d94-280a-aae8-5bfb92f81ba6@j-f-s.de> <CAMrHYE26maECiavXF7ZsVLLK32dMJ04Zs1_3ZfxxnGTsjXyxpA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrHYE26maECiavXF7ZsVLLK32dMJ04Zs1_3ZfxxnGTsjXyxpA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jensen Zhang <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 09:09:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAbpuyozhg-m+3zdY_Bj5h4p7V6H7eGNt50MYrtZz1D5FG9y9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kevin Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Seedorf <ietf@j-f-s.de>, "cdni@ietf.org" <cdni@ietf.org>, IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>, Phil Sorber <sorber@apache.org>, Francois Le Faucheur <flefauch@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a7fb42059ba17298"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/3y9MhoFvAGSF42ScFoDJt9a9YO0>
Subject: Re: [alto] Finalizing draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <alto.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/alto/>
List-Post: <mailto:alto@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 14:10:08 -0000
Hi Kevin and Sanjay, Thank you so much for the reviews. Please see my comments inline. On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 2:42 PM Kevin Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jan, > > Sorry for the delayed response. My comments as a co-author and CDNI > reviewer are below. Sanjay Mishra has also volunteered to provide an > independent CDNI review. > > thanx! > > -- Kevin J. Ma > > - section 3.7.1: > "one CDNI FCI resource depending on a network map, one filtered CDNI FCI > resource to be defined in Section 5," -> "one filtered CDNI FCI resource to > be defined in Section 5, one CDNI FCI resource depending on a network map," > or change the order in the json example > Thanks for catching it! Fixed. > > why do the filtered-cdnifci-property-map countrycode and asn > capabilities not have my-default-network-map.pid properties? > It is not reasonable to define my-default-network-map.pid properties of countrycode or asn entities. In the base ALTO protocol (RFC7285), a PID is defined as an aggregation of endpoint addresses. So in this example, this ALTO server does not allow any client to request such mappings from the filtered-cdnifci-property-map resource. > > in update-my-cdni-fci, for the my-filtered-cdnifci capability, > ""application/merge-patch+jso" should be ""application/merge-patch+json" > Fixed. Thanks! > > - section 3.7.3: > is this intended to be a continuation of the example in 3.7.2? if so, > should "http/2" be in the 3.7.2 example, if it's being removed in 3.7.3? > specifically, should "http/2" be "https/1.1" in 3.7.3? > Good point! The examples should be revised. > > in the footprint example, should the "value": "ipv4:192.0.2.0/24 > <http://192..0.2.0/24>" be a footprint object, i.e., "{ "footprint-type": > "ipv4", "footprint-value": ["192.0.2.0/24"] } ? (same comment applies to > the example in 5.7.3) > Yes, it should. Fixed. > > when adding a new ipv4 footprint, does this assume that there was not > previously an ipv4 footprint defined? if there was a previously defined > ipv4 footprint, the update should change the footprint-value array in the > ipv4 footprint structure? > Yes, it will change the footprint-value array. Assuming the "ipv4" footprint-type is the first footprint object, we should use the following JSON patch to do the update { "op": "add", "path": "/cdni-fci/capabilities/0/footprints/0/footprint-value/-", "value": "192.0.2.0/24" } The authors will fix it. > > - section 6.2.4: > the update of "ipv4:192.0.2.0/24" delivery protocol from "http/1.1" to > "http/1.1" doesn't actually change anything? > Good catch. The values in Sec 6.2.3 and Sec 6.2.4 should be different. Fixed. > > - section 7.1: > should probably add some text asking IANA to add the entry to the "CDNI > Metadata Footprint Types" registry, and add a link to its definition in > section 4.1. > I agree. WIll do it. > > - authors: > probably should change my email to: kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com and > remove my Ericsson affiliation? > No problem. Will update. > > nits: > > - section 1: > "On a high level" -> "At a high level" > "; (2) redirecting" -> "; and (2) redirecting" > "; (2) CDNI" -> "; and (2) CDNI" > "are already in [RFC8008]" -> "are already defined in [RFC8008]" > > - section 2.1: > "look like" -> "look" > "asn and countrycode" -> "asn, and countrycode" > "a /32 for IPv4 and a /128 for IPv6" -> "a /32 for IPv4 or a /128 for > IPv6" > "; (5) Capabilities" -> "; and (5) Capabilities" > > - section 2.2: > "have difficulty to measure" -> "have difficulty measuring" > "downstream CDN" -> "dCDN" > "QoS" -> "quality of service" ? > "cost map from dCDN" -> "cost map from the dCDN" > "therefore redirect requests to dCDN" -> "redirect requests to a dCDN" > "an upstream CDN" -> "a uCDN" > "e.g. " -> "e.g., " > > - section 3.5: > "The future documents" -> "Future documents" > > - section 3.7.2: > "delivery protocol and https/1.1" -> "delivery protocol, and https/1.1" > > - section 5: > "constrains" -> "constraints" > "only if the entry contains at least one of the client given > capabilities will it be returned to the client" -> "an entry will only be > returned to the client if it contains at least one of the client given > capabilities" > > - section 5.7.2: > "only http/1.1 delivery protocol" -> "only the http/1.1 delivery > protocol" > > - section 7.2/7.3: > remove "Besides, " > > - section 8: > "to run out of" -> "to unnecessarily consume" > "above well. However," -> " above, however," > "should not have to served by" -> "should not have to be served by" > "dCDN and it may not disclose" -> "dCDN; and it SHOULD not disclose" > "a dCDN may consider" -> "a dCDN could consider" > "And it needs to avoid expoing" -> "A dCDN SHOULD avoid exposing" > Fixed. Thanks for all the grammar check. Thanks again for the reviews. I did not see any major issues attacking the current design. The authors will fix all the issues above and submit a new version. Thanks, Jensen > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:29 AM Jan Seedorf <ietf@j-f-s.de> wrote: > >> Dear CDNI chairs and CDNI WG, >> >> the ALTO WG is finalizing "Content Delivery Network Interconnection >> (CDNI) Request Routing: CDNI Footprint and Capabilities Advertisement >> using ALTO" (draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-08). For the WGLC >> we are about to issue, we would like to have one individual review from >> a CDNI expert (the other one coming from the ALTO WG). Can you please >> name/choose/recommend a CDNI expert that can provide an individual >> review for the draft? We (ALTO chairs) would then start the WGLC ... >> >> Thanks, >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Jan >> >