Re: [alto] Second WGLC for cost-calendar

[Jensen Zhang <[e-mail]>]

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]>
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]>
> 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]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>