Re: [alto] Last Call: <draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-02.txt> (A Cost Mode Registry for the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol) to Proposed Standard

Hi Ben, 

Thank you for the comment. 

I think that you got the reasoning for not including such an encouragement text. 

BTW, I expect that the main concern will be related to modifying modes so that cost metrics are erroneously interpreted. That risk falls under 15.1 of 7285.  

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : alto <alto-bounces@ietf.org> De la part de Benjamin Kaduk
> Envoyé : dimanche 8 mai 2022 05:53
> À : last-call@ietf.org
> Cc : alto@ietf.org; draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [alto] Last Call: <draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-02.txt>
> (A Cost Mode Registry for the Application-Layer Traffic
> Optimization (ALTO) Protocol) to Proposed Standard
> 
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 06:57:26AM -0700, The IESG wrote:
> >
> > The IESG has received a request from the Application-Layer
> Traffic
> > Optimization WG (alto) to consider the following document: - 'A
> Cost
> > Mode Registry for the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization
> >    (ALTO) Protocol'
> >   <draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-02.txt> as Proposed Standard
> >
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> solicits
> > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments
> to the
> > last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-05-13. Exceptionally,
> > comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case,
> please
> > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated
> sorting.
> 
> This document is meeting a real need by fleshing out an extension
> point for ALTO that was previously over-constrained and not
> actually usable for extensions.
> 
> The security considerations section currently just defers to the
> core ALTO procotol spec, RFC 7285.  This seems appropriate, as
> this document is just opening up the extension point, but we might
> also consider providing specific encouragement for authors of new
> cost modes to document considerations unique to that cost mode.
> Hopefully such documents would already provide comprehensive
> security considerations, though, so it does not seem strictly
> needed for us to say anything here.
> 
> -Ben
> 
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.