Re: [alto] Status of alto-unified-props: Not encouraging?

Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com> Fri, 25 September 2020 16:51 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 B62613A0FDE for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 09:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 WezFHwntJhA8 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 09:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x636.google.com (mail-ej1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::636]) (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 ADDFB3A0FD5 for <alto@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 09:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x636.google.com with SMTP id i26so4492589ejb.12 for <alto@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 09:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4BTiuo1rASWiOEyiW3Z2bcneglm39LxcSK7IotlNuLs=; b=eIwSg9jNIz2nqpUfHgXsEc8rfzEESHA+FM0FTuZ3hMfFfNdnuvPgjpL5En5NYCOuZj w10ri6gR7AVX6DSaVuzaMJ+I46NEilsjH/op+NkoubxpasBYfOkLwxH690HhdjdqInDD 3vLTDdGZ8/ug2xz759U2HagRTiVqIIN0UvjEX5HmI2im/kz9PqblclNZ3aVhVQdxvjRt n2+eQFbvDdTN4aV9D/65LAY1634VhfikR9jJ6TMItSdhYSGi228LjflTRHASNYyGCbyr G2+Ce5B2/mwM6tLIsPoySr556Q18FJntqfVK80y2h/CaeJ/VNETPmsgu/AGwsrRsibDP seIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4BTiuo1rASWiOEyiW3Z2bcneglm39LxcSK7IotlNuLs=; b=eue4xdxO1fI6BEj+MsUqlCr7njO43p7sMP1FePCfvFjUmdAjGkgFDxjBtm0pNT2QR0 mhka8yOZO/DK3rVOmgsgVPoVaZcO/eCF+4hXBIHFcQcXFMtNs7jbTQfsMKR7kfbNJLFd +ef6EFU+BQlMImQolTGrKa6DkWDCLT2J96L9OpGLUXnY5sVWqt5RwvAjRzZ3w5srU8QJ BJjVUL+BWZVVS6szRB/G4awfhMwHYkVIGVsViM2Jq8K8fj8yBl5PjOWBnbkU3RBzSYOb eb8BO5QJwyfGhIDK4DHiVlStKBky2sbHAEz3kFWORSw8dhE5lvSC4cvriDDqWxK4BgYP 8Jmg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Z/PJa7T52YxhT44vf7frKQoFYoBsnFlghnp/qQmf3QcVyJ4eR H7/BySme47me+Ru/lSjq69CvOpWlHEtdGG8RQyE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyyzj6+Mc6HvA4cL73BQ3YA/RffN2xXwM2pQh6pIQREnfhzL8iphxchffdrp62zMjs8FKKTCxWvlt9jj5nhp5E=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:3955:: with SMTP id g21mr3611963eje.69.1601052679019; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 09:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMMTW_JzxEBBj74Yuw0YhA=VuctPJ4cEtusdcBux4tS2XQ9Wdg@mail.gmail.com> <PR3PR07MB701828D89DBDEAA5B240C6DE95360@PR3PR07MB7018.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <PR3PR07MB701828D89DBDEAA5B240C6DE95360@PR3PR07MB7018.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 11:51:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMMTW_L8u91nLTZHoAPYzU66TMwwxqa=C7xcjUTpsVvDeyPKGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com>
Cc: IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003327e405b0262097"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/GhH0ARtnSTtY2UAvHGv00s0lMgg>
Subject: Re: [alto] Status of alto-unified-props: Not encouraging?
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: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:51:23 -0000

Dear Sabine: Thank you for your note.  I think it is very important that
the WG participates in the reviews to finish this piece of work.  Absent
such robust participation, I am at a loss on how we can progress this work.

I will really like an identified reviewer (if not Luis) to let the chairs
know so we can help facilitate the work.

Thank you.

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:28 AM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia -
FR/Paris-Saclay) <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com> wrote:

> Hi Vijay,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the reminder. A new version 13 is under edition and
> addresses the review of Danny. It will also address the second review
> comments once they will be available.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sabine
>
>
>
> *From:* alto <alto-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Vijay Gurbani
> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2020 4:59 PM
> *To:* IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* [alto] Status of alto-unified-props: Not encouraging?
>
>
>
> All: The unified-properties draft is now done with its WGLC.  (In fact, it
> is well past done.  WGLC ended on Aug 7, 2020 [0].)
>
> I will be shepherding this draft, however, I see a problem with it.
>
> I note that the draft only received one WGLC review , and this was from
> Danny [1].  My understanding from list discussion [2] is that Luis was to
> provide a second review, but I do not see the second WGLC review.  If I am
> mistaken, please let me know and I will apologize profusely.  In the event
> that there has not been a second WGLC review ...
>
> If a second review is provided, please be advised that the draft will not
> move ahead.  Since other drafts have a dependency on this draft, a lack of
> movement of unified-properties implies that progress of dependent drafts
> stops as well.
>
> I will kindly request Luis to provide a WGLC no later than Oct 09, two
> weeks from now.  If other list members want to review the draft in addition
> to Luis, please let Jan and me know.  We do need one more quality review
> for unified-properties to move ahead.  If a second review is not provided
> by Oct 09, the chairs will take this as advice that the work is no longer
> important to the WG, and the WG will have to decide on the fate of
> dependent documents.
>
> @Authors: It looks like Danny's comments have not yet been incorporated in
> a new revision.  Danny reviewed version -12 and that appears to be the
> latest version in the IETF archives.  Please notify the WG on your plans to
> update the draft based on Danny's comments.
>
> [0]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/jhPmZR4UKpiIwA_tC2s9b9YZ8Mk/
> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/YVaCXE7IgXOqWpq-17GV-gbiYwo/
> [2]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/b0xwfQUVnYp_o58tJO32MF9p42I/
>
> Thanks,
>
> - vijay
>