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

Hi Francesca,

We have fixed the issues:
- The extra addition of bw-utilized is removed.
- We have fixed the second issue.

The latest version is at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics/23/

Could you please take a look and let us know if the revised version is OK?

Thank you so much for the wonderful reviews!

Richard

On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 1:49 PM Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> 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 mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>

-- 
-- 
 =====================================
| Y. Richard Yang <yry@cs.yale.edu>   |
| Professor of Computer Science       |
| http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/        |
 =====================================