Re: [alto] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-09: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 25 January 2019 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 AA969126C7E; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 13:25:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.68
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 tX1wPfJO9xbe; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 13:25:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 7458D126DBF; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 13:25:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x0PLPNbB021395 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:25:25 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1548451526; bh=0oarqahzWly/+0J8jFgbBDTKtiMqsR98dOxddoo1/BI=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=aSj4dgTtRZ2zbjZiWjACdC/t1aH0vS7Asc5H334wdkoHCeWNgCo6mefgpVbf314/D jr+x564bF9hZYgfFSCOFNqkV+AIVUy2ENQJQmH7P3Vna7ScOEF/vxXa6gCkVnFFNid hjUXOcv5lSfp3VYYWUrlDs7+ieCuu0CxH6frcLOo=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: "Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar@ietf.org>, "Gurbani, Vijay (Nokia - US/Naperville)" <vijay.gurbani@nokia.onmicrosoft.com>, "alto-chairs@ietf.org" <alto-chairs@ietf.org>, "alto@ietf.org" <alto@ietf.org>
References: <154345970393.13521.17177728478340801020.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <AM4PR07MB3236DD059F50035D0F5C8F21959B0@AM4PR07MB3236.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <1497dbf3-d057-160b-f81a-bbf6b496d81b@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:25:18 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR07MB3236DD059F50035D0F5C8F21959B0@AM4PR07MB3236.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/oMaKnXUZzJmeEKE5wGTvNQOnkFQ>
Subject: Re: [alto] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-09: (with COMMENT)
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: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 21:25:29 -0000

On 1/25/19 10:06 AM, Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) wrote:
> [[SR]] The purpose is actually to lighten the reading. Would the following addition to paragraph 3 of section 4.1.3 be OK ?
> "The Server returns Calendars with arrays of 12 numbers. To lighten the text, the arrays in the provided example are symbolized by expression "[v1,v2, ... v12]" that is otherwise not valid in JSON. The same type of symbolization is used in the example Server responses."


That seems a reasonable approach. Thanks!

/a