[alto] Status of cost-calendar

Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com> Tue, 05 February 2019 18:31 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 38F8C124BAA; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 10:31:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 cW2HLOMwdbCr; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 10:31:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52e.google.com (mail-ed1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52e]) (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 4E57E130E86; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 10:31:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id h50so3734667ede.5; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 10:31:07 -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=rgcFWh0XPSGu3uBS1wOvXNKst/41/TVmGeIgtpn5SFE=; b=VDyA6uBAGauc2ZXPCG9s/hzM/CMmDbbNwW3Kupj8zYUwdQ61B9TP/YgkDi7CVE0g7u s02v2ceoCFeuWGDUZ97kyS0i8IXOJUrZ3CnUTpI5AXBww+WDX4/CCuUjZP53bq7F2N10 UQi84z6WASCEu3p7tJpSkI5B3LCFPyBR57pc6SSgJwxI8z45cicIt3yqSMjYgYh7p+00 UV+q9uwNnddQgGZFKGAHnQfBGud65o/oRfyXiclQD89mU4DoLHh3gJnrb6BUTQmso6Lg EYjanUS8ITgo9w/th3YcggGuvi2gIPD+3UlXoXP4HuHh+mOWz1LccPh45aaYUvQIXPYw E+wg==
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=rgcFWh0XPSGu3uBS1wOvXNKst/41/TVmGeIgtpn5SFE=; b=MJbQNK7UGn+GEnP+xNyi5IRrYLjMukQRQMu1lH7wrm5ugXTqawNwkZ4wBY5k79OI1d IUOqLF7TM3U9bjAaqt79EjAhaqe26UF3xEdlFLzJBBBX/RPoH1PjBgmU61Cn22bFrEOX xFYba6hc3WFZeOtvdgPqZ2vsy1O+OvZRm8qi4f0zJc5UE+i78WkD5p6tSKKLjwZMHXfK tKNn4NcMZdV+SUw1PJqeqP6kCiprBm8mDROBgdj6lK4c256e46vDvorDBhJVJiJ+ro7V 3PzZcX8aOtPmB0K5gqN1utf80PnTcCI45tZVtes+mMScE/5jTR2vpR9F5NcQGnXP7mdu Op/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubtT2FmcEmltb0gVhrnbwBGNgkrb+3XjqjzocNGhlrbZqPJSnXm KJKWtyLwMwN8uzoXqKO/EQ+dhMEN4OUhQyFJmeWfm0PY
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYE1DNy/vqROf9vl6/qxH79MJuCSJIPeDSt2ezYp4v1W3NQcbRWJQrcrjH6V1ghBdNlYeH5bveJ6YjAypL5A5s=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:a499:: with SMTP id m25mr4541023ejz.104.1549391465321; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 10:31:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 12:30:54 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMMTW_J3JLHfuM8FKUyVbA1iwwioN8XcuXVQGCYG=+fBrAH1vw@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar@ietf.org, "Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Nozay)" <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com>
Cc: alto@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e898c3058129cfe1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/BbdaVwKSJph-puwK2vxNfeoMBRA>
Subject: [alto] Status of cost-calendar
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, 05 Feb 2019 18:31:09 -0000

Sabine, Based on my posting on the mailing list [1], it does not appear
that ALTO or any of its extensions are intimately tied to UTF-{16,32}.

As such, please reference the new JSON RFC 8259 in the Introduction to the
cost-calendar draft and please move it ahead as soon as possible after
incorporating other comments from IESG review.

I have forgotten whether we have to redo the WG and IETF last calls.  Can
you please provide the status of the draft with respect to IETF last call
and whether we need to do a WGLC again.

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/EGuPfDqoYBv7H8grPXE0qtjQsGc

Thank you.