Re: [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-01
kaigao@scu.edu.cn Sun, 17 April 2022 14:08 UTC
Return-Path: <kaigao@scu.edu.cn>
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 C49353A0D8D for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Apr 2022 07:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 EymUp8Pv2Iso for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Apr 2022 07:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zg8tmty1ljiyny4xntqumjca.icoremail.net (zg8tmty1ljiyny4xntqumjca.icoremail.net [165.227.154.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C19C73A0D7B for <alto@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Apr 2022 07:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ajax-webmail-app1 (Coremail) ; Sun, 17 Apr 2022 22:08:11 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
X-Originating-IP: [171.214.214.62]
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2022 22:08:11 +0800
X-CM-HeaderCharset: UTF-8
From: kaigao@scu.edu.cn
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: "alto@ietf.org" <alto@ietf.org>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Coremail Webmail Server Version XT5.0.13 build 20210104(ab8c30b6) Copyright (c) 2002-2022 www.mailtech.cn mail
In-Reply-To: <31045_1650099605_625A8595_31045_156_1_2096a160a21c465bbc7a3a5169245cbd@orange.com>
References: <65a5f95b.2cb8.180300ebe88.Coremail.kaigao@scu.edu.cn> <31045_1650099605_625A8595_31045_156_1_2096a160a21c465bbc7a3a5169245cbd@orange.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <567dbbf.316a.18037da40a6.Coremail.kaigao@scu.edu.cn>
X-Coremail-Locale: en_US
X-CM-TRANSID: 4wAACgCn__5MH1xiU1jSAQ--.12858W
X-CM-SenderInfo: 5ndlwt3r6vu3oohg3hdfq/1tbiAQYTB138kmTwtwAAsD
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Ur529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7IcSsGvfJ3iIAIbVAYjsxI4VWxJw CS07vEb4IE77IF4wCS07vE1I0E4x80FVAKz4kxMIAIbVAFxVCaYxvI4VCIwcAKzIAtYxBI daVFxhVjvjDU=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/BhjLC53NvFPQQCxkUkAS5fTS_KY>
Subject: Re: [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-01
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: Sun, 17 Apr 2022 14:08:26 -0000
Hi Med,
Thanks for the quick update but I have one additional comment on the registry specification:
I suggest adding the following paragraphs after the registry table:
NEW:
Requests to add a new value to the registry MUST include the
following information:
o Identifier: The name of the ALTO cost mode.
o Intended Semantics: A document defining a new cost mode must
indicate how costs should be interpreted (Section 6.1.2 of [RFC7285]).
For example, the "numerical" cost mode indicates the costs are
interpreted as values on which numerical operations can be applied.
Best,
Kai
> -----Original Messages-----
> From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> Sent Time: 2022-04-16 17:00:05 (Saturday)
> To: "kaigao@scu.edu.cn" <kaigao@scu.edu.cn>, "alto@ietf.org" <alto@ietf.org>
> Cc: "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com>
> Subject: Re: [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-01
>
> Hi Kai,
>
> The changes are raisonnable.
>
> A new version that implements the changes edits is now online.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : kaigao@scu.edu.cn <kaigao@scu.edu.cn>
> > Envoyé : samedi 16 avril 2022 03:49
> > À : alto@ietf.org
> > Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>;
> > Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
> > Objet : Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-01
> >
> > Dear WG and authors of draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode,
> >
> > I am posting this review of draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-01 to the
> > mailing list, as part of my shepherd write-up. Any comments and
> > feedback are more than welcome!
> >
> > Best,
> > Kai
> >
> > ===================
> >
> > This draft extends the base ALTO protocol (RFC 7285) by relaxing
> > the constraint on valid cost mode values and introducing a new
> > IANA (sub-)registry to document new cost mode values. The
> > motivation is clear and the proposed mechanism is clean. Most
> > comments raised in Call for Adoption and WGLC are addressed in the
> > latest revision except Dhruv's comment [1] on giving more detailed
> > specifications of the contents in IANA registry. There are two
> > remaining comments and I think the draft is ready for publication
> > once they are addressed.
> >
> > Comments:
> >
> > Section 3.1, last paragraph: The paragraph says
> >
> > Future documents that define a new cost mode SHOULD indicate
> > whether
> > that new cost mode applies to all or a subset of cost metrics.
> >
> > In that case, it seems to me that the default behavior should be
> > specified in case the applicability of the new cost mode is not
> > indicated. Either the "SHOULD" keyword is replaced by "MUST" or an
> > additional sentence is required, e.g.,
> >
> > NEW:
> > If not explicitly specified, the new cost mode applies to all
> > cost metrics.
> >
> > Section 4:
> >
> > I also agree with Dhruv's comment that the contents of the "ALTO
> > Cost Modes"
> > registry should be better specified. While the initial entries set
> > good examples of how to register a new cost mode, it can still be
> > helpful if the format and content of each field are specified in
> > more details, e.g., using similar specifications in Sections 14.2
> > and 14.3 of RFC 7285 (as suggested by Dhruv).
> >
> > I also suggest renaming the "Specification" field to "Intended
> > Semantics", to be consistent with other ALTO registries (in RFC
> > 7285 and in the unified property draft).
> >
> > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/B1agkfVtdu7tsad2-
> > MzErQXMk44/
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
</bill.wu@huawei.com></mohamed.boucadair@orange.com></kaigao@scu.edu.cn></bill.wu@huawei.com></alto@ietf.org></kaigao@scu.edu.cn>
- [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-cost-m… kaigao
- Re: [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-co… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-co… kaigao
- Re: [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-co… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-co… kaigao