Re: [alto] 2nd WGLC draft-ietf-alto-new-transport (Ends 01/06/2023)

[mengtong <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thanks for the v9 document. My minor comments are as follows.
Good luck with WGLC going forward.

  ** Section 1: "Hence, a client can run the base protocol on top of 
  HTTP/2 or HTTP/3 to request multiple information resources 
  concurrently, in concurrent streams, ... Hence, there can be large 
  overhead when the client already has ..."

The first sentence here simply illustrates how stream multiplexing can 
be used. There is no obvious causal relation with previous sentence. 
Maybe the first "hence" can be deleted.

Also, does "concurrently" and "in concurrent streams" have the same 
meaning? IMHO, with stream multiplexing in HTTP/2 and HTTP/3, "in 
concurrent streams" is effectively "concurrently".

  ** Section 1, just above Section 1.1: "URI patterns to fetch the 
  snapshots or incremental updates"

Is it necessary to specify here it is ALTO CLIENT that fetches snapshots 
or updates from ALTO SERVER?

  ** Section 2.1: "a client can direct request ..."

direct --> directly (I saw Qiufang already pointed this out. Just put it 
here to remind)

  ** Section 3.1: "from 103 and 105"

and --> to

  ** Section 4.1: "the client indicate for server push ..."

indicate --> indicates

  ** Section 4.2: "The HTTP version of a "https" connection uses is 
  negotiated"

Delete "of", or delete "uses"

  ** Section 4.2: "For HTTP/2 and /3, because of streams"

Here, "because of streams" sounds a bit unclear to me. Maybe it can be
changed to "because multiplexed streams are supported" or "with/using 
multiplexed streams".

  ** Section 5.2: "IncrementalUpdateMediaTypes incremental-change-media-types"

The expression in object type and variable name may be kept consistent, 
using either change or update.

  ** HTTP status codes in Section 6/7/8

It may improve clarity by listing possible HTTP status codes in each 
scenario, like those listed in Section 7.2. (not sure this is necessary 
though)

  ** Section 7.1

To keep the context clear, you may explicitly point to the example given 
in Section 6.3.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 06:56:23 +0000
From: <[e-mail]>
To: "IETF ALTO ([e-mail])" <[e-mail]>,
	"[e-mail]"
	<[e-mail]>
Cc: ALTO Working Group <[e-mail]>
Subject: [alto] 2nd WGLC draft-ietf-alto-new-transport (Ends
	01/06/2023)
Message-ID:
	<12339_168499[e-mail]>
	
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi all,

The authors believe that they addressed the comments raised during the 1st WGLC and also from the various directorate.

This message starts the second WGLC for the transport draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/09/. The WGLC runs for one week, i.e., till 01/06/23. The are still few PRs in https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/pulls, but those will be covered as part of the WGLC.

Please review and share any pending concerns/comments you have with this version.

Thank you.

Cheers,
Qin & Med