Re: [alto] I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-10.txt

"Y. Richard Yang" <> Sun, 17 May 2020 03:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02833A0CEC for <>; Sat, 16 May 2020 20:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hhjcjWF3QCXJ for <>; Sat, 16 May 2020 20:36:34 -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 17C7D3A0CEB for <>; Sat, 16 May 2020 20:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c17so2251244uaq.13 for <>; Sat, 16 May 2020 20:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=VoHnpWys2wDORdbA4sYOfydq9QgL05ePEDeefomoAp8=; b=jZOU/Sk1selHwi6kwNXQZBSD8YUNg9ZQaEOVXGGNF74d3o2qtorS1ErmpxOfRWpuUV n0HuCpjNA5R3YFzGiJg/4CQ9kgdLBgok3Ot9EyT51iQvdg17x3NJtAuIJaL4tdCQ7vHO OhFA/v2kc4DOSSd3FyFMSenfkxefWZxKBUVqn2F/ACOyIExgd6rjq0QdmQm4yvkt4hWQ xLMcIerMwUuDSnNTQZK7ydYOAL1zwhko/5dbQeLyWzE02UX/mWKZvd19veXQlCzfTZNd 7IBrajtm3xB2+1IelUc0c0qIeOK2JgL1W8zV82Wnrz2twzTyzmxjRxFFdMW0t0ERWg49 Lw3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5335d8jmQu55NjoP2Mrqf0wUv9hW5lnQvihBksFo1dRQNKwi8bA8 jB+BZU9RLpyGLAje7GxOYF9PQjt2EQU1tNEnQg8/DqYO
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzBCOJ0gtxwpXYZvobUfi4ifSbswoVz3RYfcBXwxY6McvO/S1hDIJNDUETUmw0KE4eYsAGrsIZLcXV0+2kdE6U=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:1413:: with SMTP id b19mr7414269uae.139.1589686592614; Sat, 16 May 2020 20:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Y. Richard Yang" <>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 23:36:21 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a8352305a5cfc0e0"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [alto] I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-10.txt
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: Sun, 17 May 2020 03:36:36 -0000

Hi all,

We have just uploaded a new version of the performance metrics. The update
reflects the WG recommendations during the last interim meeting. For
example, it includes the discussion on using Last-Modified. There are a few
places where we marked TODO, and we will fix them soon. We upload this
version so that others can review the changes earlier and we can meet the
July milestone.

Thank you so much.

On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:32 PM <> wrote:

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization WG
> of the IETF.
>         Title           : ALTO Performance Cost Metrics
>         Authors         : Qin Wu
>                           Y. Richard Yang
>                           Dhruv Dhody
>                           Sabine Randriamasy
>                           Luis Miguel Contreras
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-10.txt
>         Pages           : 30
>         Date            : 2020-05-16
> Abstract:
>    Cost metric is a basic concept in Application-Layer Traffic
>    Optimization (ALTO), and is used in basic ALTO services including
>    both the cost map service and the endpoint cost service.
>    Different applications may use different cost metrics, but the ALTO
>    base protocol [RFC7285] documents only one single cost metric, i.e.,
>    the generic "routingcost" metric; see Sec. 14.2 of [RFC7285].  Hence,
>    if the ALTO client of an application wants to issue a cost map or an
>    endpoint cost request to determine the resource provider offering
>    better delay performance (i.e., low-delay) to the resource consumer,
>    the base protocol does not define the cost metric to be used.
>    ALTO cost metrics can be generic metrics and this document focuses on
>    network performance metrics, including network delay, jitter, packet
>    loss rate, hop count, and bandwidth.
>    When using an ALTO performance metric, an application may need
>    additional contextual information beyond the metric value.  For
>    example, whether the metric is an estimation based on measurements or
>    a service-level agreement (SLA) can define the meaning of the
>    performance metric.  Hence, this document introduces an additional
>    "cost-context" field to the ALTO "cost-type" field to convey such
>    information.  To report an estimated value of a performance metric,
>    the ALTO server may derive and aggregate from routing protocols with
>    different granularity and scope, such as BGP-LS, OSPF-TE and ISIS-TE,
>    or from end-to-end traffic management tools.  These metrics may then
>    be exposed by an ALTO server to allow applications to determine
>    "where" to connect based on network performance criteria.
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list