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

[Mahdi Soleimani <[e-mail]>]

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
though)

"

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