Re: [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-01
kaigao@scu.edu.cn Tue, 19 April 2022 09:35 UTC
Return-Path: <kaigao@scu.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 444493A0E5A for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 02:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 ife8g12tPfyq for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 02:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zg8tmty1ljiyny4xntqumjca.icoremail.net (zg8tmty1ljiyny4xntqumjca.icoremail.net [165.227.154.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6552D3A0E62 for <alto@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 02:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ajax-webmail-app1 (Coremail) ; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:34:50 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
X-Originating-IP: [171.214.214.62]
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:34:50 +0800
X-CM-HeaderCharset: UTF-8
From: kaigao@scu.edu.cn
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: "alto@ietf.org" <alto@ietf.org>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Coremail Webmail Server Version XT5.0.13 build 20210104(ab8c30b6) Copyright (c) 2002-2022 www.mailtech.cn mail
In-Reply-To: <2478_1650345707_625E46EB_2478_195_1_ed449db994fb42098164b55d1cc18883@orange.com>
References: <65a5f95b.2cb8.180300ebe88.Coremail.kaigao@scu.edu.cn> <31045_1650099605_625A8595_31045_156_1_2096a160a21c465bbc7a3a5169245cbd@orange.com> <567dbbf.316a.18037da40a6.Coremail.kaigao@scu.edu.cn> <2478_1650345707_625E46EB_2478_195_1_ed449db994fb42098164b55d1cc18883@orange.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <69fada0b.3df5.180412cb5e1.Coremail.kaigao@scu.edu.cn>
X-Coremail-Locale: en_US
X-CM-TRANSID: 4wAACgBXX0M7gl5iJAXiAQ--.13519W
X-CM-SenderInfo: 5ndlwt3r6vu3oohg3hdfq/1tbiAQYBB138kmVPZgABs-
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Ur529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7IcSsGvfJ3iIAIbVAYjsxI4VWxJw CS07vEb4IE77IF4wCS07vE1I0E4x80FVAKz4kxMIAIbVAFxVCaYxvI4VCIwcAKzIAtYxBI daVFxhVjvjDU=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/XpV60G_8u-bo0Lwf7MzykQ9IXJI>
Subject: Re: [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-01
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, 19 Apr 2022 09:35:04 -0000
Hi Med, Sounds good to me. Then I believe all comments are already addressed and the draft is ready for publication. Thanks for all the work! Best, Kai > -----Original Messages----- > From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > Sent Time: 2022-04-19 13:21:47 (Tuesday) > To: "kaigao@scu.edu.cn" <kaigao@scu.edu.cn> > Cc: "alto@ietf.org" <alto@ietf.org>, "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com> > Subject: Re: [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-01 > > Hi Kai, > > I know that 7285 includes something similar, but the proposed text is redundant with the structure of the table in that section. I prefer to not include this text. > > Thank you. > > Cheers, > Med > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : kaigao@scu.edu.cn <kaigao@scu.edu.cn> > > Envoyé : dimanche 17 avril 2022 16:08 > > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> > > Cc : alto@ietf.org; Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> > > Objet : Re: Re: [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-cost- > > mode-01 > > > > Hi Med, > > > > Thanks for the quick update but I have one additional comment on > > the registry specification: > > I suggest adding the following paragraphs after the registry > > table: > > > > NEW: > > Requests to add a new value to the registry MUST include the > > following information: > > > > o Identifier: The name of the ALTO cost mode. > > > > o Intended Semantics: A document defining a new cost mode must > > indicate how costs should be interpreted (Section 6.1.2 of > > [RFC7285]). > > For example, the "numerical" cost mode indicates the costs > > are > > interpreted as values on which numerical operations can be > > applied. > > > > Best, > > Kai > > > > > -----Original Messages----- > > > From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > > > Sent Time: 2022-04-16 17:00:05 (Saturday) > To: > > "kaigao@scu.edu.cn" <kaigao@scu.edu.cn>, "alto@ietf.org" > > <alto@ietf.org> > Cc: "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com> > > > Subject: Re: [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode- > > 01 > > Hi Kai, > > The changes are raisonnable. > > > > > > A new version that implements the changes edits is now > > online. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Med > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > > De : kaigao@scu.edu.cn <kaigao@scu.edu.cn> > > > > Envoyé : samedi 16 avril 2022 03:49 > > À : > > alto@ietf.org > > Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > > <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; > > Qin Wu > > <bill.wu@huawei.com> > > Objet : Shepherd review for > > draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-01 > > > > Dear WG and > > authors of draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode, > > > > I am > > posting this review of draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-01 to the > > > > mailing list, as part of my shepherd write-up. Any comments > > and > > feedback are more than welcome! > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Kai > > > > > > > > =================== > > > > > > > > This draft extends the base ALTO protocol (RFC 7285) by > > relaxing > > the constraint on valid cost mode values and > > introducing a new > > IANA (sub-)registry to document new > > cost mode values. The > > motivation is clear and the > > proposed mechanism is clean. Most > > comments raised in > > Call for Adoption and WGLC are addressed in the > > latest > > revision except Dhruv's comment [1] on giving more detailed > > > > specifications of the contents in IANA registry. There are > > two > > remaining comments and I think the draft is ready > > for publication > > once they are addressed. > > > > > > > > Comments: > > > > > > > > Section 3.1, last paragraph: The paragraph says > > > > > > > > Future documents that define a new cost mode SHOULD > > indicate > > > > whether > > > > that new cost mode applies to all or a subset of cost > > metrics. > > > > > > > > In that case, it seems to me that the default behavior > > should be > > specified in case the applicability of the new > > cost mode is not > > indicated. Either the "SHOULD" keyword > > is replaced by "MUST" or an > > additional sentence is > > required, e.g., > > > > NEW: > > > > If not explicitly specified, the new cost mode > > applies to all > > > > cost metrics. > > > > > > > > Section 4: > > > > > > > > I also agree with Dhruv's comment that the contents of > > the "ALTO > > Cost Modes" > > > > registry should be better specified. While the initial > > entries set > > good examples of how to register a new cost > > mode, it can still be > > helpful if the format and content > > of each field are specified in > > more details, e.g., using > > similar specifications in Sections 14.2 > > and 14.3 of RFC > > 7285 (as suggested by Dhruv). > > > > > > > > I also suggest renaming the "Specification" field to > > "Intended > > Semantics", to be consistent with other ALTO > > registries (in RFC > > 7285 and in the unified property > > draft). > > > > > > > > [1] > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/B1agkfVtdu7tsad2- > > > > MzErQXMk44/ > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > alto@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto </bill.wu@huawei.com></mohamed.boucadair@orange.com></kaigao@scu.edu.cn></bill.wu@huawei.com></alto@ietf.org></kaigao@scu.edu.cn></bill.wu@huawei.com></mohamed.boucadair@orange.com></kaigao@scu.edu.cn></bill.wu@huawei.com></alto@ietf.org></kaigao@scu.edu.cn>
- [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-cost-m… kaigao
- Re: [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-co… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-co… kaigao
- Re: [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-co… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-co… kaigao