Re: [alto] Some opinions about cost calendar

Dawn Chan <dawn_chen_f@hotmail.com> Sat, 08 July 2017 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <dawn_chen_f@hotmail.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 14C89126CC4; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 08:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.126
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FORGED_HOTMAIL_RCVD2=0.874, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hotmail.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 CI_hsqbg4bsD; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 08:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from APC01-SG2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-oln040092253032.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.253.32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E559E129ABE; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 08:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hotmail.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=bAatxS9x5PAoLESTn9ngJXNB0PYRpE2q2hOtmld46gs=; b=ubtAXler1bpi7DdHsyP+exc5FcA5G5M5i8bS1hxGZ8li2cIgOBSEDhvGXsGlArYlw8S88R9z4PVXdAK7N8madH8u4m0TK6jnn7+o4O8toi93USSmOfO+Oj3xkh0S6R8djih1a7+vC8MDOGtk2OdYbo26uIt9gRUAJt/0CX3DaMu5otcHMODg/KSw0AnC6qPkz0UUnx76+mQSPVMyUxsqpawmntdTspUt7JjNPzruhubqX7QjPYSwRy/icHV9x3SRDJMf7iDtbkkoDet+glGrI7B9iCslow5k4rWN2tUArJjOvwz/7gEZgJ5lwuQ/C9+dBOsb3y/aTSucid9l5yaBug==
Received: from HK2APC01FT009.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.248.51) by HK2APC01HT017.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.249.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.1199.9; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 15:03:36 +0000
Received: from HK2PR0401MB1588.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.152.248.56) by HK2APC01FT009.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.248.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1220.9 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 15:03:36 +0000
Received: from HK2PR0401MB1588.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::18d:5c52:450d:a267]) by HK2PR0401MB1588.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::18d:5c52:450d:a267%13]) with mapi id 15.01.1240.013; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 15:03:36 +0000
From: Dawn Chan <dawn_chen_f@hotmail.com>
To: "Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Nozay)" <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com>
CC: "draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar@ietf.org>, "alto@ietf.org" <alto@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Some opinions about cost calendar
Thread-Index: AQHS6kKO/F96ShC+eESr7CeYtldFgKI9qw6AgAx3HIA=
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 15:03:36 +0000
Message-ID: <HK2PR0401MB15889D6E6CA5C3D38056B974B5AB0@HK2PR0401MB1588.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <HK2PR0401MB1588F6C5286616118F67FA48B5DA0@HK2PR0401MB1588.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com> <DB6PR0701MB2454A303AAC0459B781F9C2495D30@DB6PR0701MB2454.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB6PR0701MB2454A303AAC0459B781F9C2495D30@DB6PR0701MB2454.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=hotmail.com;
x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:7FB8D468E8427CEC52431827D47347166F70DCF745DC5F79EF875A82F32E6446; UpperCasedChecksum:E78840D843BB2EE590A486AD10274B1938FEEBC44E5C67435AD8C1A35962DC95; SizeAsReceived:7572; Count:46
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-tmn: [Za5NzXoMIea481evLNe6lN3r065sTA7E]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; HK2APC01HT017; 7:7VOZ4YUvXhm6r8RTNS7ZNno6DJ/VyhlIPM20q3P4dyQ+RetVWtxsAmuoxJrYD1IqttEJynYQskNzYxpKDqhmIYGOXY3FWdVx05ltNbLsvBoH02ZUTwng+aXPRfS1o6vLEtR0YosXSBFyovsZ26M4YuFphiFS+7nG1IARlQhThq1OofaSaMOQ3/hX7H9Cv1O92d78sYErUgpc2ZHnsm0eRcSPxwrbZQFtfR4s0FgdV/7aZmKP+nt0VH3MDeR2J158YFg5ocgccKM0xqBWdrNfCT1GMH/NKGrOUZeT5xCLWDlx+wwC2pcGRBsqSOZZjpgonHkIALW7/xPmJBSZIOs5hTXRNiXJB3cyihaJ2GpPmrITngZkVquEBzRa+2RY8RxROPekd3MbfmuEcAuVYfStqkzcPBlts+XdrSUke6B0cUQqnwgmzIGqb27HStTYOEYPigBbumm7BW4sebWbCeMJ0vuDDTlmBcFnUlSfGoKB9TNFEuPBNgOXiOi6hjsoUI5WIKvJyTgsBUY3c5ARrEH1s3BHtjbSY1yGlAHZEcH5npiKn6vSn9bufyvPu/e1EuOnUfOAVZD9YC+558voHcSamQ8zgDlDEaM35ETAuXgw1+MDvyq2aCql+7wgcg8C9JOedZNbx0Ofodk1xqpo0f9BAXxFi4ms+9EZGj87YEIQlqBqhv/VNvtZQZUi9G+aaHE1yW6BwVsORErpldMBs/mMZ7+vO7cnoh9oQQtMto9da1ZVY6ID1iWWz3KzplZ+McRs9CrV7vVcUbZpNUM6JqBCWQ==
x-incomingheadercount: 46
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-forefront-antispam-report: EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(7070007)(98901004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1901; SCL:1; SRVR:HK2APC01HT017; H:HK2PR0401MB1588.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4236b097-bf2d-449e-26ef-08d4c6128183
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(300000500095)(300135000095)(300000501095)(300135300095)(22001)(300000502095)(300135100095)(300000503095)(300135400095)(201702061074)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(2017031324274)(2017031323274)(2017031322274)(1603101448)(1601125374)(1701031045)(300000504095)(300135200095)(300000505095)(300135600095)(300000506095)(300135500095); SRVR:HK2APC01HT017;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HK2APC01HT017:
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(444000031); SRVR:HK2APC01HT017; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:HK2APC01HT017;
x-forefront-prvs: 0362BF9FDB
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_HK2PR0401MB15889D6E6CA5C3D38056B974B5AB0HK2PR0401MB1588_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: hotmail.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Jul 2017 15:03:36.0337 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HK2APC01HT017
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/z47uhj24vrH3NQH-WcpRPi0MUjs>
Subject: Re: [alto] Some opinions about cost calendar
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 15:03:41 -0000

Hi Sabine,
Sorry for the late reply. And please see my reply inline.
Regards,
Dawn
On 1 Jul 2017, at 1:28 AM, Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Nozay) <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com<mailto:sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com>> wrote:

Hi Dawn,

Thanks a lot for your review and feedback.
Please see my answers inline,
Thanks,
Sabine


From: Dawn Chan [mailto:dawn_chen_f@hotmail.com]
Sent: 21 June 2017 05:58
To: draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar@ietf.org>; alto@ietf.org<mailto:alto@ietf.org>
Subject: Some opinions about cost calendar

Hi authors of alto-cost-calendar and all,
After reviewing the draft cost calendar, I think there are two points that could be specified more clearly in the cost calendar design.
First, in Section 4.1.1, for a multi-cost aware client, if the number of values of field “calendared” is less than the “cost-type-names” queried, the ALTO server may return an ERROR.
[SR     ] The text clearly says the client MUST add an array of N boolean values corresponding to the N cost types requested. Do you mean we should add a sentence saying that if the size of this array is different from N the server will return an error?
Yes, that’s what I mean, and I see the changes in the new version, thanks.
Another problem related to the field “calendared” is that, if there is a “false” in field “calendared”for a certain cost type while cost types are “true”(for example, the client wants “num-routingcost” to be calendared while do not want “num-latency” to be calendared), when will the cost value of “num-latency” be returned? Will it be returned together with “num-routingcost” after some time intervals?
[SR     ] The ALTO Server MUST return single values as specified in RFC7285 for those cost types for which no calendar is requested. This is written in section 4.3 but you are right, it should be better specified in sections 4.2.2 and 4.1.2. Thanks for pointing this.

Second, the following is the example of he capability of Filtered Cost Map in Section 3.3. As we can see, the cost-type “num-routing-cost” and “num-pathbandwidth” share the same “time-interval-size” and “number-of-intervals”, so they are listed in one “calendar-attributes”.
"capabilities" : {
              "cost-constraints" : true,
              "cost-type-names"  : [ "num-routingcost", "num-pathbandwidth",
                                     "string-service-status" ],
              "calendar-attributes" : [
                 {"cost-type-names" : [ "num-routingcost", "num-pathbandwidth" ],
                  "time-interval-size" : "1 hour",
                  "number-of-intervals" : 24
                 },
                 {"cost-type-names" : "string-service-status",
                  "time-interval-size" : "30 minute",
                  "number-of-intervals" : 48
                 }
               ] // end calendar-attributes
              "uses": [ "my-default-network-map" ]
              }
}

However, the object  CalendarAttributes defined in Section 3.1 is following, it does not support multiple cost-type-names in a single CalendarAttributes currently
object{
     [JSONString   cost-type-name;]
     JSONString    time-interval-size;
     JSONNumber    number-of-intervals;
 } CalendarAttributes;
[SR     ] Agree, this member will be mandatory and an <1**N> array thanks for pointing this

Another point is that in Section 4.2.1, the object ReqEndpointCostMap is extended as follows (a new field calendared is added). It extends the query format of legacy endpoint cost query, we may also need to extend the query format of multi-cost aware query(a new field “calendared” add to the query).
object {
     CostType       cost-type;
     [JSONBoolean    calendared<1..*>;]
     EndpointFilter endpoints;
   } ReqEndpointCostMap;
   object {
     [TypedEndpointAddr srcs<0..*>;]
     [TypedEndpointAddr dsts<0..*>;]
   } EndpointFilter;
[SR     ] Agree, I’ll add some text on Multi-Cost requests

That’s my opinions about the draft cost-calendar. Wish to hear your ideas, thanks.
[SR     ] Thanks

Best Regards,
Dawn