[alto] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-21: (with DISCUSS)

Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 05 January 2022 18:49 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics@ietf.org, alto-chairs@ietf.org, alto@ietf.org, ietf@j-f-s.de, ietf@j-f-s.de
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <164140856107.25534.2681894874113585476@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2022 10:49:21 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/_UD_TxAxdnuvfaWkR8QnGuNol2c>
Subject: [alto] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-21: (with DISCUSS)

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-21: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work on this document, and for addressing my previous DISCUSS
points. I noticed two additional JSON issue, easy to fix, reported below.

Many thanks to Christian Amsüss for his review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/owYhcoFnl1vEipZ2D62cWiiE-LA/ , and
thanks to the authors for addressing it.

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a
DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion; I really think that the
document would be improved with a change here, but can be convinced otherwise.

Francesca

1. -----

Section 4.4.3

   {
     "cost-type" { "cost-mode":   "numerical",
                   "cost-metric": "bw-utilized"},
     "endpoints":  {
        "srcs": [ "ipv4 : 192.0.2.2" ],
        "dsts": [
           "ipv4:192.0.2.89",
           "ipv4:198.51.100.34"
        ]
     }
   }

FP: JSON doesn't validate: missing ":" after "cost-type".

2. -----

Section 4.3.3.

   {
     "cost-type" { "cost-mode":   "numerical",
                   "cost-metric": "bw-available"},
     "endpoints":  {
        "srcs": [ "ipv4 : 192.0.2.2" ],
        "dsts": [
           "ipv4:192.0.2.89",
           "ipv4:198.51.100.34"
        ]
     }
   }

FP: JSON doesn't validate: missing ":" after "cost-type". (Minor note - is
there a reason why the "srcs" address has whitespaces while other addresses
don't? 3 occurrences in the text).

[alto] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-iet… Francesca Palombini via Datatracker
Re: [alto] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft… Y. Richard Yang