[alto] Chair review of unified-props (Part 1 of 2)
Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com> Tue, 26 January 2021 16:07 UTC
Return-Path: <vijay.gurbani@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 32CE63A0CCE; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 08:07:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.195
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 UC2PBN1qPo7y; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 08:07:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb2c.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2c]) (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 182B63A0CC5; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 08:07:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb2c.google.com with SMTP id b11so17208311ybj.9; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 08:07:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1QcEnXqj6oUNzIudqQ/f1eALkyDSU7hksCvLKStI3x8=; b=reEbbSBoH/E1W4MGy5TECbO6KDYIYLvY9UxXf1Gqm1xPekfCECt6XKBck13XeyS2PD Dumia23ag/8PcEMEjpZ/q8Pb++wownA5r6lAGS+IxqsnRtkm5RKR/Yet4owmAu1sY+zV uIocFZhU3OwyaikKzuixj//kVmlTtSqk45mQ+eyBESEh849oxYsA5ZVug6QpGICqJr8D Hi5fLVfTRZ7sSukww8Ov0nYnxnyuNZJ7+qx4MemundyQ0+TQ7XJvTmNueK44lS4+prjl FyEACIl69zguKIxS7dhDxVMvDAu3pIS5kcNsIG6dvgKgRX1cUVnW4q8Zpg+O8X9kedOI hPeQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1QcEnXqj6oUNzIudqQ/f1eALkyDSU7hksCvLKStI3x8=; b=VsNjZMECx+5El5J2SrGwLsU2G0xxpCXsUoLNzShoGT8uoNBt+cjqV/AekuCXXsAZx2 TJqQuAWGNL8lbeU2h7JSwKP28s9hy5HNv1zzdcrde6dL39V0Gx+YlC5Qv/BUn4sw/6JI 21jReDqViaVllyI3j4KmtMk/Fv5vxLVG+00z2MMovDqErBZjEIyS8VMx42/Ea9bxBvK1 8tCvb61qhWfBk+SaOVfZ96FbfJwsVKUo6AmvbADZSY+k8Bbndf8k6Is7EFEyp2/hJSs+ izRskGpQVY4nIBs/qIqvOr9ndtnEyh5vRW+aEbx1r0lazJ08se4usiOOJY0L4PtyUzDh 0yjA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530cQmdvbZ7z+WaYWpCoS3+OW/vuljEjNbalToQIUY+NuxB0PBWd qPh7XZPta5gMIqlk6EJKQ92qCUJjrp2oHCRHLZiE3l3kjxo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxSDnTVL35jdJdozZNt5Pb5QJHUXh/7h1UIAsI+lisrXLlKyhjY2T1wT5ZL/PGmC/1rOoDT8NO2kez1De7D8+o=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:1e86:: with SMTP id e128mr9388164ybe.326.1611677222921; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 08:07:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:05:57 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMMTW_Jzw3xhaQKkACT4YU_GHS5AQOhLA=6DYLNOEScDZvvyog@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new@ietf.org
Cc: IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005d67d105b9cfd8e4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/7ZCGFIoT9OnZBNYOzUONbI53IxM>
Subject: [alto] Chair review of unified-props (Part 1 of 2)
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: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 16:07:09 -0000
All: My apologies for the late start on the chair reviews of the documents I am shepherding. However, I have started the review. Below is the first (of two parts) review of unified-props. This review includes all sections from Abstract to Section 4.7.1 (inclusive). Please let me know if you have any questions. I will post the second part tomorrow. Chair review from Abstract - Section 4.7.1 (inclusive). *Major*: - Abstract: "...by generalizing the concept of "endpoint properties" to generic type of entities..." ==> Note that the antecedent ("endpoint properties") and the consequent ("type of entities") do not match. Perhaps better to say: "...by generalizing the concept of "endpoint properties" as applied to endpoints defined by IP addresses to endpoints a wider set of objects..." More concretely: OLD: This document extends the base Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol by generalizing the concept of "endpoint properties" to generic types of entities, and by presenting those properties as maps, similar to the network and cost maps in the base ALTO protocol. NEW: This document extends the base Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol by generalizing the concept of "endpoint properties" as applied to endpoints as defined by IP addresses to endpoints defined by a wider set of objects. Further, these properties are presented as maps, similar to the network and cost maps in the base ALTO protocol. - S3.2.1: "An entity domain type is expected to be registered at the IANA" ==> you mean "MUST be registered with IANA"? Or "SHOULD be registered with IANA"? Best to use normative language here, unless you have a specific reason not to. - S3.2.2: What does this mean: "As a consequence, entities in such domains may be defined in a resource handling this domain type but not in other resources handling this same domain type."? I am unable to parse this, I think you are saying that of all the resources handling a particular domain type, the entity must be defined in only one of them. If so, perhaps best to reword; something like: OLD: As a consequence, entities in such domains may be defined in a resource handling this domain type but not in other resources handling this same domain type. NEW: As a consequence, of all the resources defining a particular domain type, the entity must be defined in only one resource. - S4.2.2, first paragraph: Is this example valid? From my experience, ASN's contain IPv4 addresses defined by a CIDR block. I think it is highly unlikely that a service provider will define a CIDR block (192.0.1.0/24) and have that block span ASNs, but perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps someone from network operations may want to look at this example and bless it, or if you are sure that networks are architected in such a manner, then we can let it stay. - S4.6.2: "When an ANE has a persistent identifier, say, "entity-4", the latter", here what do you mean by "latter"? In this sentence, I do not see two things that can be characterized as "former" and "latter"...? - S4.7.1: This subsection appears as an afterthought; it is not "defining resource media-types" as much as simply "listing resource media-types". It does not appear to be comprehensive since it only includes two examples, which leads me to think that perhaps these examples are best put in parts of the text that refer to these property types. Furthermore, the media type for property "pid" is already defined in RFC7285, so if you want to give an example here, simply refer to RFC7285 for it. And, the media type "alto-cdnifci+json" is defined in draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto, not in this section. My advice would be to remove this subsection, I don't think it is comprehensive and just adds to the confusion. *Minor*: - S3.1: in the bullet items, please be consistent when using "IPv4 or IPv6" versus "ipv4 or ipv6". Both forms are used, best to choose one and be consistent in the section. (I recognize that lower case "ipv4" and "ipv6" are used elsewhere in the document to define entity domains, that is okay; just be consistent in S3.1.) - S3.1, last bullet item: What os a "routable network node"? Is a network node that performs the routing function (a router)? or is it a network node that is the recipient of a packet routed to it (an endpoint)? - S4.4.3: s/sets in the upper level./subsets./ Rationale: "Upper level" of a set consists of elements that are subsets. Since you are using set theory here, perhaps best to use nomenclature in that domain. (You may edit it as "subsets (upper levels)." if that helps. - S4.4.3: Similarly, "lower level" is "superset". *Nits*: - S1: s/which is also not globally/that may not be globally/ - S3.2.2: s/A PID is defined relatively to a network map./A PID is defined relative to a network map./ - S3.4: s/thus conveying values of all property values/thus conveying all property values/ - S4.3: s/So that if/Thus, if/ - S4.5: s/ALTO Server may just not provide a/ALTO Server may choose not to provide a/ - S4.6: s/define them, that is, the set of addresses included in this PID./define the set of addresses included in this PID./
- [alto] Chair review of unified-props (Part 1 of 2) Vijay Gurbani
- Re: [alto] Chair review of unified-props (Part 1 … Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)
- Re: [alto] Chair review of unified-props (Part 1 … Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)