Re: [alto] Review of draft-randriamasy-alto-cost-context-02

Dennis Yu <dennis.yht@gmail.com> Sat, 02 December 2017 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <dennis.yht@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 5D011128854 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Dec 2017 08:21:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 85JO8o9BLBtW for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Dec 2017 08:21:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x234.google.com (mail-io0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::234]) (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 0E1FF124D85 for <alto@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Dec 2017 08:21:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x234.google.com with SMTP id x129so14362018iod.13 for <alto@ietf.org>; Sat, 02 Dec 2017 08:21:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0zsgv5V+m9kyB5Is8Owqjw8llDGZhOejrZm77r/fJns=; b=mCWLVm5P7mHJTM09RIPYVGXsIQTr5XwftL1ns6kENilntj0Te2QBFV23/9FgKPmHf5 5aPhYq95jvweFJemjSR7phq1ExUAq7JwOtwykOWxhsEjXox6u8Z44nZ63ispS1/EMU/8 DvUYanqi8Gqgufwglip1fua2jh2xEIxe25vtrf9VkNypgkFpQfMZmkRxdg3ME7+puVOC nSNByMcObDnniAt+CSyKsNn6jL3ZUx40LXSzQZKtUfPmrDSYKdTSbsZs9D/jjBvf4zax Hl76giY7J6VmCZ46KRGyCwi2kTkNrajg3lYNg+SbzHHESdUbN5mbDzwwxVlkE1EVQ68N A1yQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0zsgv5V+m9kyB5Is8Owqjw8llDGZhOejrZm77r/fJns=; b=CC3tVAwHDYZY6LMJ5/GofOigrsG2DpyPhbfB/ivYLshRCFWcqLmuxhC0Ewl74rlpRG zjbsyBbAL9z2LOW+nExk4EvpQtFoW2JHqQg9oeI79955QE4gjfpzA5vli0EKlRPFwDkJ jP6BQS31aROi2AcUAqj06xnAlTIsC6WsE4HFD4G0ZhOTrXEmqyELmJyxWrldkAxC5n+w UAuhyTMxQ6OOcIiRq6v/EtdF6NS3TpxwC2ojCuMe+Zvk67iKPcqldf/nmVQPkCQ9Ctdn iDVHBx2vPAgGgnTS07FndXMCXU/V3EWnvdhW3ixLkoMswVy19Q1PR0SKcXDsls6iaKvg JxGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7SocRitWcPofcrIItDT0fzaKVLv8QnbYcT/ni3ZIDAtgxsWJwi DdXW+L8MriDAn7BqctlN8q21nfM3qaLghfmHTk0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZvxNSqHRolZMBVJ6MjjpTVbcKCOvg/3H/zh3pIRjqS9Bu53FEft9a141xmNI5acYoRAtf/VUidGCwlDrIau+8=
X-Received: by 10.107.88.7 with SMTP id m7mr17524663iob.65.1512231677334; Sat, 02 Dec 2017 08:21:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.192.83 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Dec 2017 08:21:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <BLUPR02MB12028C42C533E659E4261A28B5380@BLUPR02MB1202.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BLUPR02MB12028C42C533E659E4261A28B5380@BLUPR02MB1202.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
From: Dennis Yu <dennis.yht@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 00:21:16 +0800
Message-ID: <CAN-YqX08ZGQ7RMwKMqHevYMfuFV8MYpqw6VGXLWv99xwsCR5Hw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dawn Chan <dawn_chen_f@hotmail.com>
Cc: "alto@ietf.org" <alto@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403043d0f7cf21897055f5ddfb0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/OE9QQNBV9_8LAY2_Fzpigsbyhco>
Subject: Re: [alto] Review of draft-randriamasy-alto-cost-context-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: Sat, 02 Dec 2017 16:21:20 -0000

Hi, all
I also reviewed this draft, and here are some little issues.

The two use cases are quite meaningful, but some concepts such as "Cost
context attributes" maybe need to be defined clear in next version.
In Section 4.4, I think it's not suitable to say "The ALTO Server can
regularly update the Cost Map and send filtered information to the ALTO
Client", because it's always the client to send the request and the server
to reply.

Some other typos,

Section 2.1, page 4, "It may integrate abstractions by the network
provider, of actual costs impacted by other values such as congestion
oravailable bandwidth are are assumed to be not easily available to UEs or
applications otherwise.",   "are are" -> "which are"
Section 4.4.2, page 13, part of the example code should be
    }, // end meta
   "cost-map" : {
       "Cell1": { "Cell1": [[70, 20, 90, 20], ... ,[50, 20, 70, 20]] },
       "Cell2": { "Cell2": [[20, 70, 20, 90], ... ,[20, 50, 20, 70]] }
   }

Sincerely,
Dennis Yu

2017-11-30 23:08 GMT+08:00 Dawn Chan <dawn_chen_f@hotmail.com>om>:

> Hi Sabine and all the ALTOers,
>
> I just reviewed the new version of ALTO Contextual Cost Values, here are
> my opinions.
>
> The updated version solves some of my confusion before. In Section 4.2,
> the ARFcost ranges from 0 to 100, with the optimal value being 0. It means
> that the larger the ARFcost value is, the serious the congestion situation
> becomes, which makes the example in Section 4.3 much more reasonable.
>
> There are something related to Unified Property Map to be resolved. In
> Section 4.1.1,  since there is no domain “PoA”, so I suppose the first
> paragraph is suggesting a new property attached to the PID to indicate the
> PID entities being “PoA”, right? As for the connection properties in the
> second paragraph, I do not quite understand the exact meaning, does it
> stand for the connection property of the PoA?
>
>  Besides, there are some minor typo errors in the draft. I list them
> below.
>
> 1. In Section 4.1, “- A cost context aware ALTO may indicate in its IRD
> capabilities…”, to be consistent with the next item, it might be ALTO
> Server.
>
> 2. It is the same problem with the first one. In Section 4.1, “- A cost
> context aware ALTO may indicate a maximum number..”, here, it refers to the
> ALTO Server, right? And there is a minior typo error “ot” in this sentence.
>
> 3. In Section 4.4, “the Cost Map can be convey connection” in the first
> paragraph, the word “use” might be lost.
>
> Above are my current ideas about the new version. Wish to hear your reply.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Dawn
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>
>