Re: [alto] Finalizing draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto

Kevin Ma <> Sun, 05 January 2020 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D674F120088; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 11:42:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.755
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.755 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, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id glPJfEE9d33a; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 11:42:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4713B120033; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 11:42:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p2so18225425qvo.10; Sun, 05 Jan 2020 11:42:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XWBD0KESXsXeqTCCURntZKBQLMzv3rXJB2pc583ekUs=; b=XNMUF/y9HquK27jUPFaG/tvRG5srULUFbKBP6a5HHxb/TiyawUeP41C6lbB8Hg1wIe DkM13h/5JyETRrrHfwcN+A65lvycMZ96iWEzn+zYCwGKw0NE8vwnGQGcXi8/KnSzej2E LWsLsCDhxokfcQH/C3YomymDpZFhEE1JnuPJzSh9wjSrJci3/ggpGx6+IHKF+fhMHG6Z p5Bk23ZIrJLmRuHfXCm3TdNk+NL/ZOVolW7LrQ3ArbgGHe50Bz0Bk3RNQtINhxc2bjTF 09IrAboeawZAy2Jf0Z1iwZS34fQdwtPTDHeSwRUNT0z/GdnRCgnwCdgfZdalC03RWoiB v4gA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XWBD0KESXsXeqTCCURntZKBQLMzv3rXJB2pc583ekUs=; b=ILsc9Xg+1v+a/i+JHULwx/Lgx774Ny2K8rdy5TNZD8X3bCr4dZOvVpcvOvF1yzOLqz G/pPzHtZCMY/2dHO1juU3eBrjrKQVtnq3z9ckh1qii5+/ta8VIkIIxvcmzANW0ZGS0So xeJ2GNmWs6htY/TC2hTQltB6ooo+ZMIPeONhbl2MtWklFPKtXDu01yU1XTWR5DFqL2Fx JW5SFDO++3MMUEgIEhpQdpFs2S+4JqqZraRd4Luyq99nXaNS4h5oa1f8+wxPfXtBS+mh wEeGYu4BMCqO1gXejIVpdDIz3wgLKKWY5CmPaf2t78ACd7VCPeMkZ2CjfLUSszmD3iTl PQ5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXx1qthgKe7ceMGHfsuRzZD8mIA/J8qMNtAuC+KbjvYv1xXnlV8 Scbi+Z62z4fiLUXzEX3G/cU7pGR4tSAdrUZKRVo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxGUlzz1g/0K20ylY7xjQQIXKfF59WWHl/51XbIbcpJtzWhQp6q9L7EY64Z1uJIAmNay0BTdrCBGmGuTAtqWZg=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1348:: with SMTP id b8mr76537644qvw.137.1578253325255; Sun, 05 Jan 2020 11:42:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Kevin Ma <>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2020 14:41:54 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Jan Seedorf <>
Cc: "" <>, IETF ALTO <>, Vijay Gurbani <>, Francois Le Faucheur <>, Phil Sorber <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d14972059b69bccf"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [alto] Finalizing draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2020 19:42:09 -0000

Hi Jan,

  Sorry for the delayed response.  My comments as a co-author and CDNI
reviewer are below.  Sanjay Mishra has also volunteered to provide an
independent CDNI review.


--  Kevin J. Ma

- section 3.7.1:
  "one CDNI FCI resource depending on a network map, one filtered CDNI FCI
resource to be defined in Section 5," -> "one filtered CDNI FCI resource to
be defined in Section 5, one CDNI FCI resource depending on a network map,"
 or change the order in the json example

  why do the filtered-cdnifci-property-map countrycode and asn capabilities
not have properties?

  in update-my-cdni-fci, for the my-filtered-cdnifci capability,
""application/merge-patch+jso" should be ""application/merge-patch+json"

- section 3.7.3:
  is this intended to be a continuation of the example in 3.7.2?  if so,
should "http/2" be in the 3.7.2 example, if it's being removed in 3.7.3?
 specifically, should "http/2" be "https/1.1" in 3.7.3?

  in the footprint example, should the "value": "ipv4:" be a
footprint object, i.e., "{ "footprint-type": "ipv4", "footprint-value": [""] } ?  (same comment applies to the example in 5.7.3)

  when adding a new ipv4 footprint, does this assume that there was not
previously an ipv4 footprint defined?  if there was a previously defined
ipv4 footprint, the update should change the footprint-value array in the
ipv4 footprint structure?

- section 6.2.4:
  the update of "ipv4:" delivery protocol from "http/1.1" to
"http/1.1" doesn't actually change anything?

- section 7.1:
  should probably add some text asking IANA to add the entry to the "CDNI
Metadata Footprint Types" registry, and add a link to its definition in
section 4.1.

- authors:
  probably should change my email to: and remove
my Ericsson affiliation?


- section 1:
  "On a high level" -> "At a high level"
  "; (2) redirecting" -> "; and (2) redirecting"
  "; (2) CDNI" -> "; and (2) CDNI"
  "are already in [RFC8008]" -> "are already defined in [RFC8008]"

- section 2.1:
  "look like" -> "look"
  "asn and countrycode" -> "asn, and countrycode"
  "a /32 for IPv4 and a /128 for IPv6" -> "a /32 for IPv4 or a /128 for
  "; (5) Capabilities" -> "; and (5) Capabilities"

- section 2.2:
  "have difficulty to measure" -> "have difficulty measuring"
  "downstream CDN" -> "dCDN"
  "QoS" -> "quality of service" ?
  "cost map from dCDN" -> "cost map from the dCDN"
  "therefore redirect requests to dCDN" -> "redirect requests to a dCDN"
  "an upstream CDN" -> "a uCDN"
  "e.g. " -> "e.g., "

- section 3.5:
  "The future documents" -> "Future documents"

- section 3.7.2:
  "delivery protocol and https/1.1" -> "delivery protocol, and https/1.1"

- section 5:
  "constrains" -> "constraints"
  "only if the entry contains at least one of the client given capabilities
will it be returned to the client" -> "an entry will only be returned to
the client if it contains at least one of the client given capabilities"

- section 5.7.2:
  "only http/1.1 delivery protocol" -> "only the http/1.1 delivery protocol"

- section 7.2/7.3:
  remove "Besides, "

- section 8:
  "to run out of" -> "to unnecessarily consume"
  "above well.  However," -> " above, however,"
  "should not have to served by" -> "should not have to be served by"
  "dCDN and it may not disclose" -> "dCDN; and it SHOULD not disclose"
  "a dCDN may consider" -> "a dCDN could consider"
  "And it needs to avoid expoing" -> "A dCDN SHOULD avoid exposing"

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:29 AM Jan Seedorf <> wrote:

> Dear CDNI chairs and CDNI WG,
> the ALTO WG is finalizing "Content Delivery Network Interconnection
> (CDNI) Request Routing: CDNI Footprint and Capabilities Advertisement
> using ALTO" (draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-08). For the WGLC
> we are about to issue, we would like to have one individual review from
> a CDNI expert (the other one coming from the ALTO WG). Can you please
> name/choose/recommend a CDNI expert that can provide an individual
> review for the draft? We (ALTO chairs) would then start the WGLC ...
> Thanks,
> Kind regards,
> Jan