[alto] Review of draft-randriamasy-alto-cost-context-01

Yichen Qian <92yichenqian@tongji.edu.cn> Thu, 29 June 2017 03:50 UTC

Return-Path: <92yichenqian@tongji.edu.cn>
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 6AB091276AF; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 20:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 oBqG5mDPofMH; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 20:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tongji.edu.cn (mailusrsvr1.tongji.edu.cn [202.120.164.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4227D126CBF; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 20:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.3.40] (unknown [100.64.11.108]) by mailusersvr1 (Coremail) with SMTP id PaR4ygB320TpeFRZsLiXAA--.5705S2; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 11:50:02 +0800 (CST)
From: Yichen Qian <92yichenqian@tongji.edu.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E8EEB3F5-1CF6-4E6E-BE40-740BD5F2D46A@tongji.edu.cn>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 11:50:01 +0800
To: IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>, draft-randriamasy-alto-cost-context@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-CM-TRANSID: PaR4ygB320TpeFRZsLiXAA--.5705S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoWxAFy5Gw45Gr43Gw1xCFy8Zrb_yoW5tr18pr W5uFyUKFs8G3ZFk3s7Xw1vvF4rArWFya15W3sYy34UZ39xGF92vF4SgF4YyFnF9rW2qF1Y qr4jqryUZ34DZFJanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUkjb7Iv0xC_KF4lb4IE77IF4wAFc2x0x2IEx4CE42xK8VAvwI8I cIk0rVWrJVCq3wAFIxvE14AKwVWUJVWUGwA2ocxC64kIII0Yj41l84x0c7CEw4AK67xGY2 AK021l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvE14v26w1j6s0DM28EF7xvwVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v2 6F4UJVW0owA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIE14v26rxl6s0DM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxV W0oVCq3wAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x082IY62kv0487Mc02F40EFcxC0VAKzVAqx4xG6I80ewAv 7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUGwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6xCaFVCjc4AY6r 1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcxkI7VAKI48JMxAIw28IcxkI7VAKI48JMxAIw28IcVCjz48v1sIEY20_ Cr1UJr1UMxC20s026xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UMI8I3I0E5I8CrVAFwI0_Jr0_Jr4lx2IqxV Cjr7xvwVAFwI0_JrI_JrWlx4CE17CEb7AF67AKxVWUXVWUAwCIc40Y0x0EwIxGrwCI42IY 6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r1xMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVCY1x0267AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6x AIw20EY4v20xvaj40_WFyUJVCq3wCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv 6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07j04E_UUUUU=
X-CM-SenderInfo: qrqrmmmu6w00xjmlhvlgxou0/
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/IFzUEXHIU8Diq0GGquaTL5yfh78>
Subject: [alto] Review of draft-randriamasy-alto-cost-context-01
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: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 03:50:09 -0000

Dear authors and all,

I think it's interesting to introduce wireless scenario into ALTO. Here's my review of this draft.

The draft introduces the cost calendar in providing the contextual cost (cell load), while it doesn’t elaborate how to use the calendar. One possible way is to use the calendar as a reference to do the prediction for the decision, while I wonder if it is accurate and useful for the user as much movement is involved in the wireless scenario and the cell load can be unpredictable.

Some detailed comments: 
1.  Introduction
“This draft brings a use case where providing different values for a same cost metric can help in optimizing the application path selection.”
- a same -> the same

“The present draft proposes to extend the cost information specified in [RFC7285] by providing, for a same cost metric, several possible cost values.”
- a same -> the same

“Previous ALTO WG discussions have suggested to introduce "the ability to "name" cost maps …”
- suggested to introduce -> suggested introducing

2.1.  Use Case 1
“The UE thus can advatageously combine the non-real time ALTO information with the real-time UDI provided by the LTE network.”
- advatageously -> advantageously

3.  Required ALTO extensions
“The aforementionned use cases can be supported with a few simple extensions to the ALTO protocol.”
- aforementionned  -> aforementioned

“these features would extend current proposals in the WG,that could be added to [draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics]”
- missing a space before “that”

4.  Design options and examples
“Context attributes taking numerous or unpredictible values should be handled as values properties or metrics expressed in constraints.”
- unpredictible -> unpredictable

4.2.  Example IRD
“The values of 'RFcost' are provided as a an ALTO Calendar as specified in [draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-00] in shorter time intervals.“
- as a an ALTO Calendar -> as an ALTO Calendar

“In addition they differ, depending on the	the context values "uda" and "udna”.”
- on the the context -> on the context

“Besides, the IRD provides metric 'routingcost' as a MUST specfied in [RFC7285]”
- specfied -> specified

4.3.  Use case 1
“As a Network Map may cover a large number of cells, the Filtered Cost Map Service can be used to reduce data exchange and get information on a restricted number of cells, say PID1 and PID2.”						
- I think Cell1 and Cell2 may be more accurate here since they have been named “Cell-k”

“In this scenario, C1 is limited by its uplink capacity, C2 is limited by its downlink capacity.”
- I think the naming here for the cells is confused as there are both “Cell1” and “C1” in this section. I suppose they refer to the same thing and can be represented in a consistent way.

4.4.2.  Network Map
- The request above has four (“src”,”dat”) pairs (Cell 1->1, 1->2, 2->1, 2->2), while in the response there are only cost maps of two pairs (Cell1->1, Cell2->2).

4.5.1.  Use case 2
“The ALTO Server will provide costs w.r.t. the AND combination accross and within arrays.”
- accross -> across

5.  Deployment case
“To maintain scalability, the ALTO coverage network zone can be decomposed in one "local"ALTO Server part covering a restricted local network zone”
- missing a space before “ALTO”

Best wishes,
Eason