Re: [alto] Review of draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-11

kaigao@scu.edu.cn Fri, 20 November 2020 05:38 UTC

Return-Path: <kaigao@scu.edu.cn>
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 8DB7C3A18A6 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 21:38:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 rpW1HlddjZmQ for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 21:38:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zg8tmty1ljiyny4xntqumjca.icoremail.net (zg8tmty1ljiyny4xntqumjca.icoremail.net [165.227.154.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E560D3A189F for <alto@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 21:38:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ajax-webmail-app1 (Coremail) ; Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:38:34 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
X-Originating-IP: [171.223.194.26]
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:38:34 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
X-CM-HeaderCharset: UTF-8
From: kaigao@scu.edu.cn
To: "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Cc: "alto@ietf.org" <alto@ietf.org>, "Jan Seedorf" <jan.seedorf@hft-stuttgart.de>, "Vijay Gurbani" <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Coremail Webmail Server Version XT5.0.13 build 20200820(b2b8cba1) Copyright (c) 2002-2020 www.mailtech.cn mail
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAADB8CC3E@dggeml511-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAADB8CC3E@dggeml511-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_362249_1194637084.1605850714031"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2897706a.18ded.175e4294fb0.Coremail.kaigao@scu.edu.cn>
X-Coremail-Locale: en_US
X-CM-TRANSID: 4wAACgA3j0VaVrdfWF8yAQ--.35356W
X-CM-SenderInfo: 5ndlwt3r6vu3oohg3hdfq/1tbiAQIGB138kkbe4AAAsJ
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Ur529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7IcSsGvfJ3iIAIbVAYjsxI4VWxJw CS07vEb4IE77IF4wCS07vE1I0E4x80FVAKz4kxMIAIbVAFxVCaYxvI4VCIwcAKzIAtYxBI daVFxhVjvjDU=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/4BbpZzn5uYOLPR3Cu69ukQgC17s>
Subject: Re: [alto] Review of draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-11
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: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:38:47 -0000

Hi Qin,




Thanks for the comments.




I took a look at the new RFCs (SSE and Cost Calendar). My impression is that their abstract mainly focuses on the benefits and high-level ideas of the extension. I try to follow the same structure and modify the abstract based on your proposed text:




This document is an extension to the base Application-Layer Traffic

Optimization (ALTO) protocol. It extends the ALTO Cost Map service

and ALTO Property Map service so that the application can decide

which endpoint(s) to connect based on not only numerical/ordinal cost

values but also details of the paths. This is useful for applications whose

performance is impacted by specified components of a network on the

end-to-end paths, e.g., they may infer that several paths share common

links and prevent traffic bottlenecks by avoiding such paths. This extension

introduces a new abstraction called Abstract Network Element (ANE) to

represent these components and encodes a network path as a vector of

ANEs. Thus, it provides a more complete but still abstract graph representation

of the underlying network(s) for informed traffic optimization among endpoints.




Also, I feel it might be a good idea to add a sentence in the end to link to the corresponding charter item (e.g., "Together, they provide a more complete, potentially more compact, but still abstract representation of networks for informed traffic optimization among endpoints.").




Does the proposed text make sense? Looking forward to your feedback!




Thanks!




Best,

Kai


-----Original Messages-----
From:"Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Sent Time:2020-11-19 20:18:34 (Thursday)
To: "kaigao@scu.edu.cn" <kaigao@scu.edu.cn>cn>, "alto@ietf.org" <alto@ietf.org>
Cc: "Jan Seedorf" <jan.seedorf@hft-stuttgart.de>de>, "Vijay Gurbani" <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Re: [alto] Review of draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-11



Thanks Kai Gao for heads up.

I feel the abstract in the path vector is too long, I propose to have the following changes to the abstract:

"

   This document is an extension to the base Application-Layer Traffic

   Optimization (ALTO) protocol. It extends the ALTO Cost Map service and

   ALTO property Map service so that the application can decide which endpoint

   to connect but also which connection path to select.


 

   This is useful for applications whose performance is impacted by specified Network Elements of end to end path

   they traverse or by their properties, e.g., they may infer that several paths share common links

   and prevent traffic bottlenecks by avoiding such paths. Examples of such Elements include

   physical devices such as routers, cables and

   interfaces, and aggregations of devices such as subnetworks and data

   centers. Example of such properties include network elements id, link id.

  

   This extension introduces a new cost type called Path Vector.  A Path Vector is

   an array of entities that each identifies an Abstract Network Element (ANE).

   Each ANE is associated with a set of properties.  ANE properties are introduced and conveyed by

   an ALTO information resource called "Property Map", that can be

   packed together with the Path Vectors in a multipart response.  They

   can also be obtained via a separate ALTO request to a Property Map.

"

 

-Qin

发件人: kaigao@scu.edu.cn [mailto:kaigao@scu.edu.cn]
发送时间: 2020年11月19日 17:47
收件人: alto@ietf.org
抄送: Jan Seedorf <jan.seedorf@hft-stuttgart.de>de>; Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>om>; Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
主题: Re: Re: [alto] Review of draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-11

 

Hi Jan, Vijay and Qin,

 

As we discussed in the ALTO meeting today, -12 has addressed the comments of both Qiao and Luis but the revision proposed by Richard was not integrated. Also, Qin mentioned that a shorter and more concise abstract is expected.

 

I have integrated the revisions of Richard and written a new abstract as below. Could you please take a look and see if the abstract makes sense? If it does, I will upload -13 once the submit tool is available.

 

Thanks for the comments and looking forward to your feedback!

 

Best,

Kai

 

----------------------------------

   The performance of many applications, such as large-scale data
   transfers and/or mobile applications, depends on the properties of
   different components of networks.  Thus, such information is useful
   to help clients better determine the choices of delivering traffic,
   e.g., by avoiding shared bottlenecks.  This document extends the base
   Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) protocol with a graph
   representation format using path vectors.  It 1) complements existing
   path-based ALTO cost map representation with the ability to specify
   components of networks for a source and a destination, and 2) uses
   the ALTO property map to associate these components to their
   properties.  Together, this extension provides a more complete but
   still abstract representation of networks for informed traffic
   optimization among endpoints.

 

2020-11-03 06:04:06"'Richard Yang'" <yry@cs.yale.edu>wrote;wrote:

H Luis,

 

Thanks a lot for the wonderful review! As we upload the revision, here is a summary of the changes that we make. Please see inline to see if you are OK. After you approve, we will finalize all.

 

On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 5:01 PM LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO <luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com> wrote:

Hi all,

 

I have performed a review of the draft, with comments as follows:

 

/* Technical comments */

.- Section III Terminology – Path Vector bullet. Please, rephrase the description, it is hard to understand, especially the second sentence. Not clear.

 

OLD

 Path Vector: A Path Vector, or an ANE Path Vector, is a JSON array

      of ANE Names.  It conveys the information that the path between a
      source and a destination traverses the ANEs in the same order as
      they appear in the Path Vector.

 

NEW

 

Path Vector: A Path Vector, or an ANE Path Vector, is a JSON array

      of ANE Names.  This extension (i.e., ALTO path vector extension) generalizes
      BGP path vector, where a standard BGP path vector specifies the sequence of
      autonomous systems from a source to a destination. In this extension, the path
      vector specifies the sequence of general ANEs computed according to a user 
      request.

 

.- Section 4.2 – it refers to recent use cases, but it is not relevant how recent are the use cases (in fact, for this, see my next comment). So I would suggest to remove any reference to recent either in the title or the text. Simply refer to use cases.

 

Very good point. We have removed the word "recent" in the title and the text.

 

 

.- Section 4.2 – there is a reference to an expired I-D which last from 2013 (so pretty old). I would suggest to remove such a reference since somehow the potential use cases it refers should be present here.

 

Sounds good. Yes. Removed.

 

.- Section 5.1.3, 2nd paragraph – “… and the response must return and only return the selected properties …” – two comments here: (1) must should be MUST in this context?; (2) “… and only return …” – probably redundant, better either remove or rephrase as “MUST/must only return”.

 

Good point. 

 

OLD 
   "... and the
   response must return and only return the selected properties for the
   ANEs in the response."



NEW

  "... and the

   response MUST include and only include the selected properties specified in the filter. "

 

.- Figure 4 – the figure shows two response messages, but some questions arise in this respect: (1) what happens if second response is not received?; (2) what happens if only the second response is received? Is it silently discarded?; (3) is there some expected timer for accounting time-out in the responses? It is mentioned in bullet 2 that there could be some processing among messages, so it can be assumed that some maximum delay could happen between both responses.

 

Good point.

 

OLD
  Specifically, the

   Path Vector extension requires the ALTO client to include the source
   and destination pairs and the requested ANE properties in a single
   request, and encapsulates both Path Vectors and properties associated

   with the ANEs in a single response, as shown in Figure 4.

 

NEW

 

  Specifically, the

   Path Vector extension requires that (1) the ALTO client include the source
   and destination pairs and the requested ANE properties in a single
   request; (2) the ALTO server MUST return a single response with the Path Vectors followed by the
   properties associated with the ANEs in the Path Vectors, as shown in Figure 4. 

 

In addition, in 5.3.3, we add the specification on the essential completeness issue: 

 

OLD
5.3.3. Order of Part Message 

 

NEW
5.3.3. Order and Completeness of Part Message 

 

We add a sentence at the end of 5.3.3

   The ALTO server MUST always send the complete response including both parts. The client should check the completeness of response and implementing a timeout mechanism to avoid hanging issues.

 

 

.- Section 6.2.4, last paragraph - Hard to understand, not clear. Please, rephrase/review.

 

OLD
   Specifically, the defining resource of ephemeral ANEs is the Property

   Map part of the multipart response.  The defining resource of
   persistent ANEs is the Property Map on which standalone queries for
   properties of persistent ANEs are made.

 

NEW

   Note that there are two types of ANEs (see Section 5.1.2): ephemeral ANEs and
   persistent ANEs. For ephemeral ANEs, the defining resource is the Property

   Map part of the multipart response; the defining resource of
   persistent ANEs is the Property Map on which standalone queries for
   properties of persistent ANEs are made.

 

.- Section 6.4.2, Intended semantics text – it is not clear the association of persistent to ephemeral. Why is this? What is the purpose? 

.- Section 6.4.2, last paragraph – The value of ephemeral is provided, but what would be the value of persistent one?

 

It looks that we need a bit more update. We will finalize the update shortly.

 

.- Section 9.3, 1st and past paragraph – they seem inconsistent since in one hand the first claims incompatibility while the second claims compatibility. Please, review them.

 

As SSE is finalized now, we will update this part shortly.

 

.- Section 9.4 – When used with the calendar extension, should the ANE be always persistent? I mean, same ANE for all the time views, otherwise could not properly work. Please, clarify.

 

It should. We will update.

 

 

/* Editorial comments */

.- Section I Introduction, pag. 5, penultimate paragraph – “… Path Vector response involve two ALTO …” -> “… Path Vector response involves two ALTO …”

 

Good catch. Fixed.

 

.- Section I Introduction, pag. 5, last paragraph – “… the rest of the document are organized …” -> “… the rest of the document is organized …”

 

Good catch. Fixed.

 

.- Section III Terminology stands that the document extends the terminology used in RFC 7285 and in Unified Properties draft. This implies some precedence in the edition of the documents as RFCs, if they finally progress to that stage. So I would recommend to add a note for RFC Editor mention that precedence (note to be remove once the document becomes a RFC).

 

Good idea. Unified, which is newer, should have precedence. 

 

.- Section 5.1 – the text (2nd paragraph) auto-refers to section 5.1. Redundant, better to remove.

 

Fixed.

 

.- Section 5.2 – 1st paragraph – correct -> correctly

 

Fixed.

 

.- Section 5.3, last sentence before Figure 4 – “… the ANEs in a single response …” -> “… the ANEs in an additional response …”

 

Fixed.

 

.- Section 6.6 – The second paragraph starts with NOTE; probably better to rephrase writing it as a normal paragraph.

 

Chaned to "Note that ..."

 

.- Section 9.2, last sentence – “compatible” -> “compatibility”

 

 

Good catch. Fixed.

 

Thank you so so much!!

 

Richard

 

Best regards

 

Luis

 

__________________________________

Luis M. Contreras

 

Technology and Planning

Transport, IP and Interconnection Networks

Telefónica I+D / Global CTIO unit / Telefónica

 

Distrito Telefónica, Edificio Sur 3, Planta 3

28050 Madrid

España / Spain

 

Skype (Lync): +34 91 312 9084

Mobile: +34 680 947 650

luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com

 

 

 


Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição

_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto




 

--

-- 

 =====================================

| Y. Richard Yang <yry@cs.yale.edu>   |

| Professor of Computer Science       |

| http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/        |

 =====================================