Re: [alto] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-03: (with DISCUSS)

[[e-mail]]

Hi Rob, 

FWIW, we added a NEW text to explain how the new modes can be discovered using legacy means: https://tinyurl.com/cost-mode-latest. 

Thanks for the review. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : mercredi 25 mai 2022 17:06
> À : The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-03:
> (with DISCUSS)
> 
> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-03: Discuss
> 
> 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-
> positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT
> positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
> here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode/
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> DISCUSS:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is a "discuss" discuss, as in I'm not sure the document is
> wrong, but I
> thought that it would be helpful to flag this for further
> discussion.
> 
> In RFC 7285, cost-mode is defined as a field that MUST take one of
> two string
> values, either "numerical" or "ordinal".  I'm not really familiar
> with RFC
> 7285, and in particular, whether a receiver is required to
> explicitly check
> that the received data must take one of these two values, or
> whether a
> reasonable implementation could check for a single value, and if
> doesn't match
> that value assume that it must be the other value (since there are
> only two
> allowed values).  Obviously, moving to more than two values could
> then cause
> this assumption to break in existing implementations.  Was this
> issue
> considered and discussed by the WG?  It looks like alto does
> support a
> versioning mechanism (i.e., by defining new media types) that
> might allow the
> definition of this field to be upgraded in a safer way.  Was that
> approach
> considered?
> 
> Regards,
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.