Re: [alto] [E] [CDNi] WGLC for draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-09 Wed, 19 February 2020 23:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 130AF12095B; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:12:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LjuBwm29TKDa; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:12:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA51E120897; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:12:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=corp; t=1582153934; x=1613689934; h=to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version:from; bh=R65VPY6z1+RYH6HQ4Lx6aHL5nX3QpFXQVs8FSCLDPHA=; b=iyYTAyhLU2yPMymykRewPyFzab+OBx1eoxpWzJBh4n/dIxiE8RAoI8sN 5mbUYER+hNZAmsIbciH1ZyvgxHSMyqG3ci06JyBkg+d3hvK/LbnzpU+B4 SKMO4RBUD8w6+OyUiW1VHLjKQlglcjwyF1cWraqMaS+74vsjvRtKqIINZ U=;
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384; 19 Feb 2020 23:12:12 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:12:10 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:12:10 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:12:10 -0500
To: IETF ALTO <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [E] [CDNi] WGLC for draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-09
Thread-Index: AQHV2qN2vJm/DkvWA06jsqjZqatkBagjGQWg
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 23:12:10 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6a9f3fdc0d774acdb7f0e0ad60806fabtbwexch02apduswinadvzwc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [alto] [E] [CDNi] WGLC for draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-09
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 23:12:20 -0000

I have review draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-09 and don’t have any issues except some minor suggestions and nits.

Sec 1 Introduction:

1.       If by using “functionalities” below is meant to reference the two RFC (RFC 7975 & RFC 8008), semantically, it may be better to state that the request routing interface is covered in two separate RFCs and reference the two RFC by name and number.

a.       Correspondingly, the request routing interface is broadly divided into two functionalities: (1) CDNI Footprint & Capabilities Advertisement interface (FCI), and (2) CDNI Request Routing Redirection interface (RI).

2.       (replace is -> are)

a.       A protocol to transport and update such objects between a uCDN and a dCDN, however, is not defined

3.       (delete “some”)

b.      In this way, a uCDN can effectively fetch capabilities of some footprints in which it is interested

4.       (add “as defined” instead of “defined” in two places in the sentence starting as below)

c.       Throughout this document, we use the terminologies for CDNI defined…

Section 2.1:

5.       (replace “For a detailed discussions” with “For detailed information…” )

d.      For a detailed discussion, the reader is referred to the RFCs.

6.       Remove extra sub bullet at the end of section 2.1 since there is no text (check the document for other instances of bullet but no text).

Section 2.2:

7.       Remove reference to I-D.jenkins-alto-cdn-use-cases

8.       Replace (“Identifications -> Identification): Security: Identifications between uCDNs and dCDNs are extremely important

9.       Can an example be added of what unexpected cases authors envision?

a.       Error-handling: The ALTO protocol has undergone extensive revisions in order to provide sophisticated error-handling, in particular regarding unexpected cases
Section 6:

10.   Re-word (“First, we describe how to represent”)

a.       We firstly describe how to represent

11.   Replace (“And then” with “Second”)

Section 8:

12.   Add a colon  after follows

a.       included as follows.

13.   Needs some rewording for the sentence below:

a.       For availability of ALTO services, an attacker may get the potential huge full CDNI


From: CDNi [] On Behalf Of Vijay Gurbani
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:08 AM
To: IETF ALTO <>rg>;
Subject: [E] [CDNi] WGLC for draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-09

All: Jan and I will like to start WGLC for
draft-ietf-cdni-request-routing-alto-09.  The WGLC period will run from Mon,
Feb 3 2020 to Wed, Feb 19 2020.

This email is also being cross-posted to the CDNI working group.

We will like to have one WG list member from ALTO and one WG list member from
CDNI review this draft in depth.  Please send Jan and me an email if you are willing
review the draft as part of WGLC.

In addition, we will like general reviews of the draft from both ALTO and CDNI WGs.

Thank you.