Re: [alto] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-19: (with DISCUSS)

[Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jensen,

Thank you for addressing all the comments! I have cleared my DISCUSS.

Francesca

From: iesg <[e-mail]> on behalf of Jensen Zhang <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 25 January 2022 at 14:01
To: Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>
Cc: alto-chairs <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, IETF ALTO <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [alto] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-19: (with DISCUSS)
Hi Francesca,

Thanks for pointing the remaining comments out. The new version is available now:

IETF datatracker status page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto/
HTML version: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-20.html
A diff from the previous version: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-20

Please let me know if you have any other comments.

Thanks,
Jensen


On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 11:09 PM Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-19: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work on this document, and for partly addressing my previous
DISCUSS.

Many thanks to Thomas Fossati for his in-depth review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/MKG2Cdin96WLcksnA6nAu6pvThM/ , and to
Alexey Melnikov for his media-types review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/uGakYYYPVjBEwei9isTaluPwhDE/.

Only 2 small changes noted by Alexey are still missing - quoting the relevant
text in his mail
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/LU4gHAY4fQZ6vK7rh8pdSfDwTO0/:

1. >>     Also when you split the registration template into 2 it would be
   >>     good to have a sentence here explaining how the two formats differ.
>
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. Could you kindly give us some further
> examples about what should be explained? Do we need to explain the
> different cases where the two subtypes should be used, or just explain
> the difference between the two registration forms?

The former. If I as an implementor read the registration, I need to
decide whether or not I should implement processing of this particular
media type.

2. I've just realized that you are also missing "Fragment identifier
considerations:" field after this one. (See RFC 6838) Having it as "N/A"
is fine.

Francesca





_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto