Re: [alto] Second WGLC for cost-calendar

Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com> Wed, 06 March 2019 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B35FE13122F for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 10:21:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QPfmgSebJLHv for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 10:20:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52b.google.com (mail-ed1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6870E131227 for <alto@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 10:20:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id h58so11191468edb.5 for <alto@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 10:20:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SISI2Jsa3yp6n5sntFfLyys2AHbkrNtUSq+sNU7EzDQ=; b=F9nCtuLohD0BRHb2VRRNxrJOJUckc5OegDhY6x1ZH0HY7D/hbDezs6YTodYpfz6i7g J+KDiOjKk5CoFx2Mv3b1IXfk/JNLiFyPHiRISklqI7RyjxPmVwk9TzhdlhC3Ou9xoe0H BZRmrIM6D/7qVh0/PCQ70Vec93eAyPvYGNdVC+JZhpcAe/Y3xZ+FhH6ASUHmgtIB7y9r AWtADj+Q2ieq8dneVExe1PVXmrXG5aA6Xb/tBNTSeeY0e9rN/lYT9LWxyjVCpkqiiaZb fvefarBsQelgq3skhfnj8lWlGdO91DSN6JrxYdzKoTSAk50CkbY5hyBSDRTnDt/RHvxi oXig==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SISI2Jsa3yp6n5sntFfLyys2AHbkrNtUSq+sNU7EzDQ=; b=bQBSpLOJ9CZ2BE8wJyHPvU0olOj7X8CYZCA8DvgYb++sK2tbydzDXyKavKca1Es0Qw YpxJ4ld2PtjSMxwZm51mKCexJg6KIN+4h6KFON2mOes6/Y1tXM93ylQPgD6YjcVVUeaR kZ4hZ8zaut85gT+w0CPTCYMbTOhVPXU9+/fPSZZVVh1EyLU2ojF2ZCH2GagGFv5I7nOs geQT1zMRjhEJjaMRZ/rHYomgBocnQBE/w4yMpOdWRkhts9ZRJQfxS4I80b1eRexg3LGp 5cZ5jP8CIshpkoiYrU52TL0DdiJmtwVNnqmpVr4SDhyNyEgO2cK+fgJSNusunxDIOxda cp2w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVEvIBZ+hRJxu0SPclr7mvkosErarY0hRPCbyoJHLL2RaDqvJf/ Y4+xV+mPWZvd234zVXDik+9OWlWfL+VlTPrLA0c=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz+F5OO3gzLVRFiiyKrlF8Gyweo/SuFma+Q+EiYFMFGNC2mDyuPLKxAUfdr3qRg0dTJIvQQIE91TEbhxQ3fOVw=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:2c9:: with SMTP id b9mr25460292edx.8.1551896455697; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 10:20:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMMTW_KtVLEo4RYtxVAo8+MEvApAPVLPPQ62ACV_dOU2NWJhfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMTW_+r50k2++8FBMeYsC-w9L2ocp0O5ebiB7OL8ENfOfugJg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAbpuyr_h93gn=cotsuh0=NK-_wcCaFG=WLVzGe1H2XpQ8yaYw@mail.gmail.com> <AM4PR07MB32361496EF3B5504BA90F8FB957F0@AM4PR07MB3236.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMTW_JKAM0Wid+c+AMbHV5RLSCrT0WDExsHwziZRNCYXz_Qjg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMTW_JKAM0Wid+c+AMbHV5RLSCrT0WDExsHwziZRNCYXz_Qjg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 12:21:37 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMMTW_J_rP7XhZKCB93LWww3zC1VueipJObwA=j3H71NvxXnEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com>
Cc: IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f85a750583710ca1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/oHvHFIpnbd43l8P20OulgS9uPRQ>
Subject: Re: [alto] Second WGLC for cost-calendar
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <alto.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/alto/>
List-Post: <mailto:alto@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 18:21:01 -0000

Sabine: Thank you for submitting the revision.  I will go over it and get
back to you with any editorial changes, and pursuant to that we will move
it out of the WG.
Cheers,
- vijay

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 2:08 PM Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> Sabine: The second WGLC for cost-calendar is now over.  Jensen and Danny
> (thank you both) have provided comments.
>
> Kindly attend to the comments during WGLC and release a new version so we
> can move this work ahead.
>
> Thank you for your attention to this.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 11:47 AM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia -
> FR/Paris-Saclay) <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com>; wrote:
>
>> Hi Jensen,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your review , I will fix this,
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Sabine
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* alto <alto-bounces@ietf.org>; *On Behalf Of *Jensen Zhang
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 22, 2019 6:28 PM
>> *To:* Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>;
>> *Cc:* IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>;
>> *Subject:* Re: [alto] Second WGLC for cost-calendar
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi ALTOers,
>>
>>
>>
>> I checked the JSON examples in draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-10. And I
>> saw the following syntax errors still left in the latest document:
>>
>>
>>
>> In the IRD example in Sec 3.3,
>>
>> - "meta/cost-types/num-throughputrating/cost-metric"
>> and "meta/cost-types/string-servicestatus/cost-metric" have trailing commas.
>>
>> - missing a comma between
>> "resources/filtered-cost-map-calendar/calendar-attributes" and
>> "resources/filtered-cost-map-calendar/uses".
>>
>>
>>
>> In the FCM response example in Sec 4.1.3,
>>
>> - missing a pair of { } inside the list value of
>> "meta/calendar-response-attributes".
>>
>>
>>
>> In the ECS response example in Sec 4.2.3,
>>
>> - "meta/calendar-response-attributes" has a trailing comma.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the Multi-Cost ECS response example in Sec 4.2.4,
>>
>> - missing a comma between
>> "meta/calendar-response-attributes/cost-type-names" and
>> "meta/calendar-response-attributes/calendar-start-time".
>>
>> - "meta/calendar-response-attributes" has a trailing comma.
>>
>>
>>
>> After fixed the syntax issues above, I used cURL to check the
>> Content-Length for all JSON examples.. But I cannot get the same value as
>> the document gives.
>>
>>
>>
>> Following is my result. But the Content-Length value for the response
>> JSON should be wrong. Because I just left the symbols "v1, v2, ..." but not
>> the concrete values in the JSON.
>>
>>
>>
>> ./cost-cal-ecs-req.json
>>
>> > Content-Length: 290
>>
>> ./cost-cal-ecs-res.json
>>
>> > Content-Length: 557
>>
>> ./cost-cal-fcm-req.json
>>
>> > Content-Length: 208
>>
>> ./cost-cal-fcm-res.json
>>
>> > Content-Length: 689
>>
>> ./cost-cal-ird.json
>>
>> > Content-Length: 2542
>>
>> ./cost-cal-mcecs-req.json
>>
>> > Content-Length: 373
>>
>> ./cost-cal-mcecs-res.json
>>
>> > Content-Length: 967
>>
>>
>>
>> My script and JSON files for the Content-Length checking can be found in
>> my Gist: https://gist.github.com/fno2010/9d4ac11ff268a83011f7d0bcf5bd44e2
>>
>>
>>
>> Sabine, you told me you replaced the symbols "v1, v2, ..." by specific
>> values to evaluate the content-length. Not sure which values you
>> were using. But you can modify the JSON files and rerun my script to
>> evaluate the Content-Length.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Jensen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 1:16 PM Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>;
>> wrote:
>>
>> Folks: The WGLC period is about to expire and so far no one has posted
>> anything to the list.  It is imperative that we have some folks looking at
>> the drafts as we move them along.  I do realize everyone is busy, please
>> kindly take a few minutes to look at the diffs and post anything that seems
>> remiss to the list.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:54 AM Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>;
>> wrote:
>>
>> Folks: During the IESG review of cost-calendar, substantial comments were
>> made that requires a second WGLC for this draft.  Pursuant to the second
>> WGLC, we will resend the draft to the IESG.
>>
>>
>>
>> The IESG comments are captured in [1].  The authors of cost-calendar have
>> revised the draft to address these comments and the new draft (version -10)
>> is available at [2].
>>
>>
>>
>> This email serves as a second WGLC for cost-calendar and will run from
>> Mon, Feb 11 2019 to Mon, Feb 25 2019.  During this two week period, please
>> examine carefully the revised version and post any comments or discussions
>> to the list, even if you have no comments, a simple email to the list
>> saying that you have examined the changes and the draft is ready to proceed
>> is helpful.
>>
>>
>>
>> To help you save time, you can examine the diffs between -09 and -10 at
>> [3].
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar/ballot/
>> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar/
>> [3]
>> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-10.txt
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> alto mailing list
>> alto@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>>
>>