Re: [alto] 2nd WGLC draft-ietf-alto-new-transport (another review with minor comments)

Mahdi Soleimani <> Wed, 31 May 2023 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA70AC151540 for <>; Wed, 31 May 2023 15:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.093
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.093 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OeGqsJ3SbZYz for <>; Wed, 31 May 2023 15:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C49DC15106D for <>; Wed, 31 May 2023 15:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-55592287480so32357eaf.1 for <>; Wed, 31 May 2023 15:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=googleprd; t=1685573243; x=1688165243; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=sSpYueDVA1QrxqkmNvxyj9eyQDMpCEeaAeq57W/JWj4=; b=Az5A0mz1s5ZwNiSl0mZstiQOy58JP/AZra2akdRLm9TaWp998Cp2TFehtpnpSS3tPR AMjfOcdgPTRNfkvLSgPr+08o9LyvrvDSIZHxxy2jhoOsWFMU5EdufhiGI2YOpLLo7F6x glF/58D//AvLf0F+oMGAIkHY2tA5z8Ub0BloU=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20221208; t=1685573243; x=1688165243; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=sSpYueDVA1QrxqkmNvxyj9eyQDMpCEeaAeq57W/JWj4=; b=ctKX2TqEQnOz5wPJhGHiANnddB8V+dAV3kFu4QBS5/PV0SBh50XgS3ygD9r+mgLVAE xPi7zXftpJBcl6CpbGvkShWlaFMtG1DMZXB3q/73Q41+otlYRti2xfGcv7JX434+DXcL +egWSSBM48xoHsMEi4nLOZ2dr36k3p+FS+YiozXPZ8/WRYpAEuEaFfaQFD7ClORGLCL7 mpiFA0yq9hbxSZWp6izqpYUgjSzc5tAKWRMv4KI5TnmHY4Rx7xBLX3w1G412S8pqnO1z R4LSEwfKrxn7drAL2PVBVVnRPh8+xXaFL7djd6ypoWW3QqQ0E7xD7KdBeTsZNitZsEoK eAtQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDyE3tioGUwm+A6vukjZTPwQJun+Mm+qhQxjs4G7gaT9lH79qcfs Y0usglqEtXjUBbiCr6ghzQvPq44oYqbublCjUV3qcA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6C62Lcve0R4/Ny9D4itOKjp3KNEoxIvWQS7mSc5mKwsExObVacm3dZQzZ2g6MrUwpe0MXlt0cW8nwikauHHpM=
X-Received: by 2002:a4a:ba8d:0:b0:547:50b4:9236 with SMTP id d13-20020a4aba8d000000b0054750b49236mr2610804oop.0.1685573242932; Wed, 31 May 2023 15:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Mahdi Soleimani <>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 18:46:46 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Cc: "" <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000636e8a05fd051a1a"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [alto] 2nd WGLC draft-ietf-alto-new-transport (another review with minor comments)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 22:47:28 -0000

Dear authors,

Congratulations on the publication of your document and the successful
WGLC. The document is well-specified, well-written, and thoroughly
addresses the topic.

However, I would like to point out three minor errors, in addition to the
comments made earlier by Meng and Qiufang:

   1. On page 43, there is a repetition of the word "section" in the last
   paragraph of Appendix B.
   2. On page 33 (section 9.2), the sentence "For incremental updates..."
   contains repeated parts.
   3. On page 10, in Section 3.2, the opening sentence needs revision. It
   currently reads, "Which we can [name?]."

Furthermore, I have a couple of not-so-important comments:

       A. On page 41 (Appendix A), the types of resources mentioned do not
reflect the hierarchical (top-down) nature of the three categories.
       B. It appears that a simple limit on the maximum number of parallel
requests is insufficient to mitigate the threat of DDoS, as stated later in
the document. Could you clarify what HTTP status should be returned if a
server is unable to process requests from non-malicious clients due to a
high load?

Lastly, I would like to reiterate the comment made by Meng to ensure the
document is as comprehensive as possible:


  ** 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


Once again, I want to express my gratitude to all of you for producing such
a meticulous document on such an impactful topic.

Best regards, Mahdi