Re: [alto] Second WGLC for cost-calendar

Hello cost-calendar authors

Please, see my comments in the attached file (marked with [DANNY]). Many of
them are brief suggestions about format issues.

Best regards,

Danny Lachos

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 2:47 PM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia -
FR/Paris-Saclay) <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com> wrote:

> Hi Jensen,
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot for your review , I will fix this,
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sabine
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* alto <alto-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Jensen Zhang
> *Sent:* Friday, February 22, 2019 6:28 PM
> *To:* Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [alto] Second WGLC for cost-calendar
>
>
>
> Hi ALTOers,
>
>
>
> I checked the JSON examples in draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-10. And I saw
> the following syntax errors still left in the latest document:
>
>
>
> In the IRD example in Sec 3.3,
>
> - "meta/cost-types/num-throughputrating/cost-metric"
> and "meta/cost-types/string-servicestatus/cost-metric" have trailing commas.
>
> - missing a comma between
> "resources/filtered-cost-map-calendar/calendar-attributes" and
> "resources/filtered-cost-map-calendar/uses".
>
>
>
> In the FCM response example in Sec 4.1.3,
>
> - missing a pair of { } inside the list value of
> "meta/calendar-response-attributes".
>
>
>
> In the ECS response example in Sec 4.2.3,
>
> - "meta/calendar-response-attributes" has a trailing comma.
>
>
>
> In the Multi-Cost ECS response example in Sec 4.2.4,
>
> - missing a comma between
> "meta/calendar-response-attributes/cost-type-names" and
> "meta/calendar-response-attributes/calendar-start-time".
>
> - "meta/calendar-response-attributes" has a trailing comma.
>
>
>
> After fixed the syntax issues above, I used cURL to check the
> Content-Length for all JSON examples.. But I cannot get the same value as
> the document gives.
>
>
>
> Following is my result. But the Content-Length value for the response JSON
> should be wrong. Because I just left the symbols "v1, v2, ..." but not the
> concrete values in the JSON.
>
>
>
> ./cost-cal-ecs-req.json
>
> > Content-Length: 290
>
> ./cost-cal-ecs-res.json
>
> > Content-Length: 557
>
> ./cost-cal-fcm-req.json
>
> > Content-Length: 208
>
> ./cost-cal-fcm-res.json
>
> > Content-Length: 689
>
> ./cost-cal-ird.json
>
> > Content-Length: 2542
>
> ./cost-cal-mcecs-req.json
>
> > Content-Length: 373
>
> ./cost-cal-mcecs-res.json
>
> > Content-Length: 967
>
>
>
> My script and JSON files for the Content-Length checking can be found in
> my Gist: https://gist.github.com/fno2010/9d4ac11ff268a83011f7d0bcf5bd44e2
>
>
>
> Sabine, you told me you replaced the symbols "v1, v2, ..." by specific
> values to evaluate the content-length. Not sure which values you
> were using. But you can modify the JSON files and rerun my script to
> evaluate the Content-Length.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Jensen
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 1:16 PM Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Folks: The WGLC period is about to expire and so far no one has posted
> anything to the list.  It is imperative that we have some folks looking at
> the drafts as we move them along.  I do realize everyone is busy, please
> kindly take a few minutes to look at the diffs and post anything that seems
> remiss to the list.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:54 AM Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Folks: During the IESG review of cost-calendar, substantial comments were
> made that requires a second WGLC for this draft.  Pursuant to the second
> WGLC, we will resend the draft to the IESG.
>
>
>
> The IESG comments are captured in [1].  The authors of cost-calendar have
> revised the draft to address these comments and the new draft (version -10)
> is available at [2].
>
>
>
> This email serves as a second WGLC for cost-calendar and will run from
> Mon, Feb 11 2019 to Mon, Feb 25 2019.  During this two week period, please
> examine carefully the revised version and post any comments or discussions
> to the list, even if you have no comments, a simple email to the list
> saying that you have examined the changes and the draft is ready to proceed
> is helpful.
>
>
>
> To help you save time, you can examine the diffs between -09 and -10 at
> [3].
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar/ballot/
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar/
> [3]
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-10.txt
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>

Re: [alto] Second WGLC for cost-calendar

Attachment: draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-10.txt