[alto] Review of draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-02

Kai Gao <gaok12@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn> Tue, 28 November 2017 02:37 UTC

Return-Path: <gaok12@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn>
X-Original-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9798B12932A for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:37:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pqw1pzU8urrb for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:37:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tsinghua.edu.cn (smtp30.tsinghua.edu.cn []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98E8126BF7 for <alto@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:37:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by app-1 (Coremail) with SMTP id DwQGZQBnSfLfyxxalHodAQ--.62724S2; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 10:37:19 +0800 (CST)
To: IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>
From: Kai Gao <gaok12@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn>
Message-ID: <234e15ae-8d38-489e-1293-41070e756466@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 10:37:19 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-CM-TRANSID: DwQGZQBnSfLfyxxalHodAQ--.62724S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7uFyrWryrZr4rJF1rCF1rJFb_yoW8Ww4xpF s8CFyxKF1ktFyxCw4kZa18Wr48Aw48Kr45tF1rJry2y39Iqr1IvF4Utw1YvFW7Wry0vrWj vr4Y9r98X3WavFJanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUU9Sb7Iv0xC_Cr1lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_tr0E3s1l84ACjcxK6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr1j6F4UJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIE14v26rxl6s0DM28EF7xvwV C2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW0oVCq3wAac4AC62xK8xCEY4vEwIxC4wAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x0 82IY62kv0487Mc02F40EFcxC0VAKzVAqx4xG6I80ewAv7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUGw Av7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcVAKI48JMxk0 xIA0c2IEe2xFo4CEbIxvr21lc2xSY4AK67AK6r4UMxAIw28IcxkI7VAKI48JMxC20s026x CaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UMI8I3I0E5I8CrVAFwI0_Jr0_Jr4lx2IqxVCjr7xvwVAFwI0_JrI_ JrWlx4CE17CEb7AF67AKxVWUJVWUXwCIc40Y0x0EwIxGrwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r 1j6r1xMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVCY1x0267AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_ WFyUJVCq3wCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r 4UYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07jY5l8UUUUU=
X-CM-SenderInfo: 5jdryi2s6ptxtovo32xlqjx3vdohv3gofq/
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/I1sALL6bTNRs3GtK4e6FqIPO6-M>
Subject: [alto] Review of draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-02
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 02:37:25 -0000

Dear ALTO working group,

Below is a review of draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-02. Most of 
them are minor edits and I think section 2 could be better organized. 
Your feedback and comments are highly appreciated.





p3, table 1, last row:
missing a "]"

p3, introduction, last paragraph

"explicitly specified" -> "standard" or "ISP independent"

p4, 2nd para

"If some are subject to ... them to the client"

Could be

"For example, those that are subject to privacy concerns should not be 
to unauthorized ALTO clients."

p4, figure 1

"retrieve and aggregation" -> "retrieval and aggregation"

p4, 3rd para

SHOULD -> MUST since if a metric is not announced to clients in IRD, 
it's strange to say it's "supported".

p4, 4th para

further versions -> maybe "future extensions" is better? Can we add new 
types if this document becomes standard?

as for example, ... metrics. -> such as many metrics related to 
end-to-end path bandwidth.

ALTO may convey ... capacity related measurements. -> I don't quite 
understand this part. Is it saying ALTO should provide some unified 
aggregation mechanism since these metrics cannot be provided by a single 

p4, 5th para

will rapidly give up... -> SHOULD/CAN rapidly give up


I wonder if we could use "Data sources and computation of ALTO 
performance cost metrics". Many metric specifications point back to this 
section so I think it should also give guidelines or suggestions while 
talking about challenges.

The specifications are generally good but is it possible to split the 
examples a bit? There are many large blank blocks.