Re: [alto] Second WGLC for cost-calendar

Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com> Tue, 26 February 2019 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <vijay.gurbani@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 5304A129532 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:08:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 YYa1jaICkdUh for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:08:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x530.google.com (mail-ed1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::530]) (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 27F491288BD for <alto@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:08:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x530.google.com with SMTP id a16so11907087edn.1 for <alto@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:08:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wKY04gnPR8vty80iJxdlYQsc7oq7WCajL1VZk/iXFwQ=; b=oL8r67Kte31lEGqtuXvsPTnLHTsh8zI68IV7nR+xGSLGaNfmjJiN0afdOfUuOM3Gok XV0OJ55AWbi9g9xpxs398L+baUBmIoDqysvcWRQZdu/nfaTfgAaIgdkH1pXd1CVAa9TV 7OvGc0m0vqSBSjjFabW66303jOn81W+wMnNii9ACogjcfZJyoOycmkWx65Fx3Dr1LwRb QfpJg81JD/Atr4R6Ud7ia1H3iAiUz+960aDoFlqLgDPLFSTaV1a4JkQE2JQ5+svtpo6h vg6nQ6IUCWmMgFzIxbx7MXjUO4VREiENhkQV8+vOLhTxK81w4wbDO8nCVEjUHEo3vUvU JfjA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wKY04gnPR8vty80iJxdlYQsc7oq7WCajL1VZk/iXFwQ=; b=BXNGXorWRuj1fIJrVe0rYnKXcZIxxFXH9QeGid+zMBVVXSywdJLeI3oOUxTO+xajuh 7zktkMLiezif4P1KlSc7WL4RNwKmGLtTUWSG1vvJ5wBX5xGj9hPh9u3JOJy6BKlZyxf2 TG90J3gXSYDOo4gA1GByleSjPhk/JfaZbXfFVFLpJLbYGPmHHqg1j6401yFc/D/ba6ub 31bMcQtX9Lm5aQwSKw1yFurN5CJA1RIb3OoMX/tS0owkE+3QWqSvm5MfQcvi/JN00O3I ZkodeJaLq91sPogtAyxk0P0iTDsIx3MdfyXZwAkX9YBGWj3B5tF3TPdpaBNcSZKrEed8 t1Og==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubR7ykTwOymPsiukU73Yx7pbvXmpikop92F9uqrYSDtpFK018e5 rijw6vB+Rx6fXFpLXvYQoklnTzC82CSCJUySD71J9Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Ibuot4MIhXdBM6EL2KBeb5Ear9md8GfTH4L+5Nf+Sp+IyqnVL87MYx6L9gXxsJ8ZUXxE5+6l5v0R6vfTtqMU5E=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:a982:: with SMTP id n2mr20003050edc.236.1551211694501; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:08:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMMTW_KtVLEo4RYtxVAo8+MEvApAPVLPPQ62ACV_dOU2NWJhfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMTW_+r50k2++8FBMeYsC-w9L2ocp0O5ebiB7OL8ENfOfugJg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAbpuyr_h93gn=cotsuh0=NK-_wcCaFG=WLVzGe1H2XpQ8yaYw@mail.gmail.com> <AM4PR07MB32361496EF3B5504BA90F8FB957F0@AM4PR07MB3236.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR07MB32361496EF3B5504BA90F8FB957F0@AM4PR07MB3236.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:08:00 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMMTW_JKAM0Wid+c+AMbHV5RLSCrT0WDExsHwziZRNCYXz_Qjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com>
Cc: IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000005b6bc0582d19ebc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/SRyw4UUFEiQhyanyresHxsP7T3M>
Subject: Re: [alto] Second WGLC for cost-calendar
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 26 Feb 2019 20:08:19 -0000

Sabine: The second WGLC for cost-calendar is now over.  Jensen and Danny
(thank you both) have provided comments.

Kindly attend to the comments during WGLC and release a new version so we
can move this work ahead.

Thank you for your attention to this.


On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 11:47 AM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia -
FR/Paris-Saclay) <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com>; wrote:

> Hi Jensen,
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot for your review , I will fix this,
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sabine
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* alto <alto-bounces@ietf.org>; *On Behalf Of *Jensen Zhang
> *Sent:* Friday, February 22, 2019 6:28 PM
> *To:* Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>;
> *Cc:* IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>;
> *Subject:* Re: [alto] Second WGLC for cost-calendar
>
>
>
> Hi ALTOers,
>
>
>
> I checked the JSON examples in draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-10. And I saw
> the following syntax errors still left in the latest document:
>
>
>
> In the IRD example in Sec 3.3,
>
> - "meta/cost-types/num-throughputrating/cost-metric"
> and "meta/cost-types/string-servicestatus/cost-metric" have trailing commas.
>
> - missing a comma between
> "resources/filtered-cost-map-calendar/calendar-attributes" and
> "resources/filtered-cost-map-calendar/uses".
>
>
>
> In the FCM response example in Sec 4.1.3,
>
> - missing a pair of { } inside the list value of
> "meta/calendar-response-attributes".
>
>
>
> In the ECS response example in Sec 4.2.3,
>
> - "meta/calendar-response-attributes" has a trailing comma.
>
>
>
> In the Multi-Cost ECS response example in Sec 4.2.4,
>
> - missing a comma between
> "meta/calendar-response-attributes/cost-type-names" and
> "meta/calendar-response-attributes/calendar-start-time".
>
> - "meta/calendar-response-attributes" has a trailing comma.
>
>
>
> After fixed the syntax issues above, I used cURL to check the
> Content-Length for all JSON examples.. But I cannot get the same value as
> the document gives.
>
>
>
> Following is my result. But the Content-Length value for the response JSON
> should be wrong. Because I just left the symbols "v1, v2, ..." but not the
> concrete values in the JSON.
>
>
>
> ./cost-cal-ecs-req.json
>
> > Content-Length: 290
>
> ./cost-cal-ecs-res.json
>
> > Content-Length: 557
>
> ./cost-cal-fcm-req.json
>
> > Content-Length: 208
>
> ./cost-cal-fcm-res.json
>
> > Content-Length: 689
>
> ./cost-cal-ird.json
>
> > Content-Length: 2542
>
> ./cost-cal-mcecs-req.json
>
> > Content-Length: 373
>
> ./cost-cal-mcecs-res.json
>
> > Content-Length: 967
>
>
>
> My script and JSON files for the Content-Length checking can be found in
> my Gist: https://gist.github.com/fno2010/9d4ac11ff268a83011f7d0bcf5bd44e2
>
>
>
> Sabine, you told me you replaced the symbols "v1, v2, ..." by specific
> values to evaluate the content-length. Not sure which values you
> were using. But you can modify the JSON files and rerun my script to
> evaluate the Content-Length.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Jensen
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 1:16 PM Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>;
> wrote:
>
> Folks: The WGLC period is about to expire and so far no one has posted
> anything to the list.  It is imperative that we have some folks looking at
> the drafts as we move them along.  I do realize everyone is busy, please
> kindly take a few minutes to look at the diffs and post anything that seems
> remiss to the list.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:54 AM Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>;
> wrote:
>
> Folks: During the IESG review of cost-calendar, substantial comments were
> made that requires a second WGLC for this draft.  Pursuant to the second
> WGLC, we will resend the draft to the IESG.
>
>
>
> The IESG comments are captured in [1].  The authors of cost-calendar have
> revised the draft to address these comments and the new draft (version -10)
> is available at [2].
>
>
>
> This email serves as a second WGLC for cost-calendar and will run from
> Mon, Feb 11 2019 to Mon, Feb 25 2019.  During this two week period, please
> examine carefully the revised version and post any comments or discussions
> to the list, even if you have no comments, a simple email to the list
> saying that you have examined the changes and the draft is ready to proceed
> is helpful.
>
>
>
> To help you save time, you can examine the diffs between -09 and -10 at
> [3].
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar/ballot/
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar/
> [3]
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-10.txt
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>
>