[alto] Status of alto-unified-props: Not encouraging?

Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com> Fri, 25 September 2020 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 900213A0D2C for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jov8jYbVchp1 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x632.google.com (mail-ej1-x632.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::632]) (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 DAC7F3A0D17 for <alto@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x632.google.com with SMTP id u21so4085144eja.2 for <alto@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/Ajt2ZZsG0yW8ZDXiPEwrqnINmbZdIJAfuW3odAlxZA=; b=VqZ+OcAhd9dW9gAq6UCXVqvbbNFskWyQkf3HC6mbZP0fVIej65bEPCD89tEkOee9sy PGbreIIbOUfKo4jlFX6hpiPEJYT0zixhaSqyhtVEKibSzxFtFcQQfCfToaAlstLfH2vM WHU0H46KBxdOc/rBvOTe46e7NuBb/1Ij3wSR6LyD6KvqRhINEkMBcDgWiuzua8pS2LPs 44LEX7mssmiRC7qZ1wqyzetZ8s9K7OKfplt1XfSOVhMqU0271N4uluUYFRoaTW54adIn Y2WT79uAs/wMT+UvRwIWa2AdY6F8ExhSrgTlezZlKkD5cGdxfDx1u+RiOCVrXA0XQQTc oLzA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/Ajt2ZZsG0yW8ZDXiPEwrqnINmbZdIJAfuW3odAlxZA=; b=Q7MiNZCyhY0HmzJZa6BJuKTuJlsTqy6GJ7wchchtr3zZoYmLHVx+j4eSZurc6uSD9b C5rf/S+qXGAh70dpgCrnormq59xXa9VM0z3pSHJ7GTdxXDI6B/EYbi1g7d0UMDzKhA5b zZ95XOLs+en0SshjaxQLaz4+XVI444o5fPtUxW3totdhgORQK3OIgHlAzCQB+K5HUsq3 ClfLH/JjXc8XYO3xvDl3nlksDzVffii7q7sF51jnhV3uYTc/Vxfs6B413PF4nkpXZdwu 0nVncxQ7eUGsQoM5kk8/VKLGQgA0mQcM12+eGUxz7uUBnMNM6kO0b/zUK65e3UTslw62 TrSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531+GTyIUCVWzlNdOOD01a3nKZMMZfPxkUkGN7EjWqADueOPu4Tx du5sbZ1Gkq4ZZ636mPYNHG7jJdAHcusz1lIB2hZ7bisYtiA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwVeIA+jfQXtthmOe3hY9wxHUibxcxyhIMSglLD09qhIzpsqWqFaQ2XcgaMeCYMEH+AB6Etp3MNRDaZtaOCoZc=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:edc4:: with SMTP id sb4mr3055414ejb.144.1601045954833; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 09:59:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMMTW_JzxEBBj74Yuw0YhA=VuctPJ4cEtusdcBux4tS2XQ9Wdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006832f205b0248fc9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/cWi2YNk6odQ_hL-0oF9GRxKyYqs>
Subject: [alto] Status of alto-unified-props: Not encouraging?
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: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 14:59:19 -0000

All: The unified-properties draft is now done with its WGLC.  (In fact, it
is well past done.  WGLC ended on Aug 7, 2020 [0].)

I will be shepherding this draft, however, I see a problem with it.

I note that the draft only received one WGLC review , and this was from
Danny [1].  My understanding from list discussion [2] is that Luis was to
provide a second review, but I do not see the second WGLC review.  If I am
mistaken, please let me know and I will apologize profusely.  In the event
that there has not been a second WGLC review ...

If a second review is provided, please be advised that the draft will not
move ahead.  Since other drafts have a dependency on this draft, a lack of
movement of unified-properties implies that progress of dependent drafts
stops as well.

I will kindly request Luis to provide a WGLC no later than Oct 09, two
weeks from now.  If other list members want to review the draft in addition
to Luis, please let Jan and me know.  We do need one more quality review
for unified-properties to move ahead.  If a second review is not provided
by Oct 09, the chairs will take this as advice that the work is no longer
important to the WG, and the WG will have to decide on the fate of
dependent documents.

@Authors: It looks like Danny's comments have not yet been incorporated in
a new revision.  Danny reviewed version -12 and that appears to be the
latest version in the IETF archives.  Please notify the WG on your plans to
update the draft based on Danny's comments.

[0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/jhPmZR4UKpiIwA_tC2s9b9YZ8Mk/
[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/YVaCXE7IgXOqWpq-17GV-gbiYwo/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/b0xwfQUVnYp_o58tJO32MF9p42I/


- vijay