Re: [alto] AD review of draft-ietf-alto-xdom-disc

Jan Seedorf <> Tue, 30 October 2018 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73904130DC8; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uf_ex5weIA4S; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EC6C130E0A; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jans-MacBook-Air.local ([]) by (mreue106 []) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M8xsm-1gEmXe1QqU-006353; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 19:11:44 +0100
Received: from Jans-MacBook-Air.local ([]) by (mreue106 []) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M8xsm-1gEmXe1QqU-006353; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 19:11:44 +0100
To: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <>,
References: <>
From: Jan Seedorf <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 19:11:42 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:70xozE6EuK17uCWxR9zxEWXUj0jwbPBLH5F6l8QkDboh9eCWg6N xkj0r8eigQw6bi5d8wnUaiCjWHFkj+o/p6oO7YEYHD6/9rqSX0lJOpjtOv2KwFCbQWwEyUu vaIM6zSVT5CSxstIJBLG/oWjqnr9GeDB+XnR7GMyhZ8IUeiHoyRHPZiMT/9MobAdCfOhjQx sjo/tJ7uKn44IYpgeCnNg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:PXXK39LlXiw=:pgpt+P5dB5wBME+10XLjT6 Y7tMwSE42xklWX5aXkbqOtOGq3EKAbS3g9pfM9yziuYndnA21594pTMFjRVtF+jN4QjGUmtxe 2GVp4APJN3Wp7BJANyMcKwefaQT629S66sLl9h+lAAkD922HKVVz2mOCIAaeKoIe2jB56Y7sz e/W+XDfyBTlgbN73NWVr24S0Ad5J8ePi6iRJGK81/YVwbX5V0s2vyDrGebSJe5ftUCVOG+tdF /cQxwfeWFPdkrJtwKoFrTKcqacD9Xkg+5rlhTEgB6HbAiBaIYAcUrM4U+N5kw73KFY33eUhs2 hQI78C8FnGwTuCE4O/KR9TM555x2gVqGICaIfCr5qPv4Oof12OpjcpNbwbCtEsn7z/xZRfLiX DdDDmAVLjVwZPdzkeDx4eXLZHvXoMP2hlGBOSMClgizoPqr08OjRCxWefFsI/3JynCs8VEIgz 1Yvf6HVOP8kBZeloqdPTZRLTzvVmbcnC/1rkC3PF0cfIsGL7IoPKzWJzdsy5g9BD6uKKMm58z R2+UaIbDcQO3UrIoXnX3LUwkCuFANwK6a2zBc5GRiC4bWWy0n4qrlr1hQYhCjcyGRL6CKeoSv NLkwIv3cREapikk3wulmuSNntQ3mlNIvr1H0VnHGm1K5oInXa8A5xRf3trozQ3jaZHuMTRYvS X5E5ab5H8ynfdjCn4ttEhWYbEj1Y3kWGaRaNy0lc3zGBzCGmi2sDvsEpN6Btr/0iz7umIZ5br XfrMlrcv+X8d0njsm3o2pFWmTujV2828ei67fBqIy+oOGrfkyi7yFpr9XhZKevTTNW5SkPhEV CJqCoNt8606338BUqvv/omB1DOuiA==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [alto] AD review of draft-ietf-alto-xdom-disc
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 18:11:52 -0000

Martin, Sebastian,

I suggest you get to the editorial comments from Mirja sometime soon, so 
we that a new version is published by the time this goes into the IESG 
call in December.

  - Jan

On 30.10.18 18:33, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
> Hi authors, hi shepherd,
> thanks for the well-written document and write-up! I've reviewed the draft and would be ready to start IETF last call any time. However, I will not be able to join the next telechat on Nov 21 and therefore this doc has to wait for final approval for Dec 6 anyway. That means we have plenty of time to start IETF last call and I would prefer to start it after the meeting week! Let me know if there are any concerns about this time line!
> While I think the document is ready, I of course still have a couple comments after my review. See below for my comments which are mostly editorial. Feel free to address them or not and update the doc before or after IETF last call accordingly. Just let me know what your plans are!
> Thanks!
> Mirja
> ———————————————
> Review Comments:
> 1) There are a few abbreviations that are not spelled out at first occurrence (but later instead). Can you double-check this…?
> (You can also check with the RFC Editor Abbreviations List:
> )
> 2) This part seems to be twice in the doc
> sec 2: "For the remainder of the document, we use the notation:
>     IRD_URIS_X = XDOMDISC(X,"ALTO:https“)“
> sec 3: "For the remainder of the document, we use the following notation for
>     calling the ALTO Cross-Domain Server Discovery Procedure:
>        IRD_URIS_X = XDOMDISC(X,"ALTO:https“)“
> I guess you can just remove it in sec 2.
> 3) sec 3: "These error
>     conditions have to be reported to the caller in an appropriate way.“
> Would you be able to say more here?
> 4) sec 3.4: "If no IRD URI could be
>     found after looking up all domain names from the 3rd and 4th column,
>     the procedure terminates unsuccessfully, without producing a result.“
> What does this mean for the caller? Or should an empty result rather be returned?
> 5) section 4: in 4.3 and 4.4 the step to call the ALTO Cross-Domain Server Discovery Procedure and then query the IRD(s) are listed as explicit step while in section 4.1. and 4.2 the same (?) steps are described in text. The way this is represented is a bit confusing. Also given these two first steps are always the same, is it really necessary to describe them separately in each subsection? To be honest, the way it is currently presented I’m a bit confused where the differences are…
> 6) Appendix A and B: Thanks for moving this part in the appendix. It is absolutely appropriate to have any such information in the appendix. However, please reconsider before final publication if all of this information actually has an achievable value or if some maybe can be removed before final publication. Also for appendix A please consider renaming it.
> 7) In appendix maybe replace "sk@labpc12“ with something more neutral e.g. „user1“…