Re: [alto] Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[[e-mail]]

Hi Paul,

Thank you for the review. 

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : jeudi 2 juin 2022 05:12
> À : The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-03:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-03: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-cost-mode/
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> DISCUSS:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
> Probably an easily answered issue, but I am not too familiar with
> ALTO.
> 
>      The string MUST be no more than 32 characters, and it MUST
> NOT contain
>      characters other than [...]
> 
> Are there implementations that already deployed a cost string with
> more than 32
> characters or characters not in this newly imposed set of
> characters?

[Med] No. 

 What
> should happen if that is in use? That is, is this protocol
> modification
> potentially breaking interoperability with older implementations?
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> COMMENT:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 
> While no fan of "patch RFCs", thank you for at least putting the
> OLD and NEW
> text in one document, so an implementer and reviewer doesn't have
> to switch
> between documents and get confused about what was read was the old
> doc or new
> doc.
> 
> That said, patching in the text "This document" feels a little
> weird. What RFC
> does "This document" then refer to? Perhaps change "This document
> defines two
> cost modes" to "Two cost modes are defined".

[Med] OK.

> 
>      Future documents that define a new cost mode SHOULD indicate
> 
> I think that SHOULD can be a MUST.

[Med] We don't use MUST here because we do have a default behavior specified in the sentence right after: "If not explicitly indicated, the new cost mode applies to all cost metrics."

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.