Re: [alto] Second WGLC for cost-calendar

["Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <[e-mail]>]

Great thanks Danny, I will update accordingly.
Best regards,
Sabine


From: Danny Alex Lachos Perez <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 2:08 PM
To: Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jensen Zhang <[e-mail]>; Vijay Gurbani <[e-mail]>; IETF ALTO <[e-mail]>
Subject: 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) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Jensen,

Thanks a lot for your review , I will fix this,
Best regards,
Sabine


From: alto <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Jensen Zhang
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 6:28 PM
To: Vijay Gurbani <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: IETF ALTO <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto