Re: [alto] Call for Adoption: draft-bw-alto-cost-mode-01

Hi Med,

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 11:53 AM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

> Hi Dhruv,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the comments.
>
>
>
> We will be adding a “description” in the next iteration, however the
> details about the structure/etc should not be echoed in the table but be
> available in the pointer provided under “Specification”.
>
>
>

Dhruv: Maybe I was not clear. I meant to say the IANA sections in RFC 7285
included a lot more text than what is there in this I-D. See
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7285#section-14.2 and
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7285#section-14.3. I was
suggesting using a similar format and adding more text about this new
registry as well.

> I’m not sure a specific prefix for private use is needed, but I may be
> mistaken. When running experiments, the owners can just pick any value
> which does not conflict with a value in the registry + provide the
> semantic/behavior to ALTO nodes that are involved in the experiment.
>
>
>

Dhruv: Experiments sometimes leak into the wild and thus
we discourage simply picking any value and opting for private use and
experimental use values in the IANA registry. Further, consistency in the
protocol extensions is a good thing to have, and thus using priv: makes
sense to me! I was not in the room when RFC 7285 was being developed. Maybe
some of the OG participants from the WG could through some light on this as
well :)

Thanks!
Dhruv

> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Envoyé :* mardi 8 mars 2022 06:52
> *À :* Kai Gao <kaigao@scu.edu.cn>
> *Cc :* alto <alto@ietf.org>; alto-chairs@ietf.org
> *Objet :* Re: [alto] Call for Adoption: draft-bw-alto-cost-mode-01
>
>
>
> Hi Kai,
>
>
>
> Support adoption!
>
>
>
> Should the IANA consideration section follow the format followed by RFC
> 7285 which includes lot more details on the rationale, requested
> information, string format etc.
>
>
>
> That also made me wonder if there is some benefit to also mark priv: for
> private use as done for some of the other ALTO registries.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dhruv
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 4:58 PM <kaigao@scu.edu.cn> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have been appointed to run the Call for Adoption of
> draft-bw-alto-cost-mode-01.
>
> Following up with what has been proposed and agreed during the IESG review
> on draft-ietf-alto-path-vector [1], we are starting a call for adoption of
> the ALTO cost mode [2] document as a charter deliverable. It both helps
> push forward existing WG document and fits in the protocol maintenance item
> in the current charter.
>
> The Call for Adoption will close on March 21 (2 weeks after the IETF
> submission deadline). Please post to the mailing list if you support or
> appose the adoption, or have any comments or suggestions.
>
> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/WWoyJyM0PioBWM_rADYT-Z_I8t4/
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bw-alto-cost-mode-01
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best,
> Kai
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> 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.
>
>