[art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-02
Jaime Jimenez via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 11 May 2022 08:01 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E5BC159A3F; Wed, 11 May 2022 01:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jaime Jimenez via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: art@ietf.org
Cc: alto@ietf.org, draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 8.1.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <165225606200.27597.12526979685881022006@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Jaime Jimenez <jaime@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 01:01:02 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/AdWmf0LOQ2JPGOZRQWVqTczvlwA>
Subject: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-02
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 08:01:02 -0000
Reviewer: Jaime Jimenez Review result: Ready with Nits Dear all, I am the assigned reviewer for the Applications and Real Time Area Review Team (ART-ART). Nits/editorial comments: One minor comment is that since this document sets a registry with a limited set of cost-modes (for now "numerical" and "ordinal") that require IANA registration anyways, why not assign some 8-bit codes ("0x0, 0x1") to save space on the wire.? Probably this has already been discussed somewhere in the WG, so I apologize if I am way off on this. Another minor comment is that RFC7285 defines variations of a JSON they use in now few different locations in the document, section 10.1, section 10.6, section 10.8.2 and after this document is approved also on section 10.5. To make transparent to the that they are different I would consider writing a line on section 3.2 saying that neither the '.' separator nor the the at sign ('@') are allowed. There is an extra space on 3.2: U+0041 -U+005A Should be: U+0041-U+005A There is a typo on 3.2: ('_', +005F) Should be: ('_', U+005F)
- [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-alto-… Jaime Jimenez via Datatracker
- Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-a… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-a… Francesca Palombini