Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-25> for your review
Sandy Ginoza <sginoza@amsl.com> Wed, 21 September 2022 21:04 UTC
Return-Path: <sginoza@amsl.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83134C1524AE; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZGRV1FIJyPLe; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2A97C152582; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89789425977E; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PKzIE90XbM34; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (2603-8000-9603-b513-c993-a4d4-650b-0bdd.res6.spectrum.com [IPv6:2603:8000:9603:b513:c993:a4d4:650b:bdd]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 11D87425977D; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
From: Sandy Ginoza <sginoza@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANUuoLr9BdvucCBrFC=Uuhq8=CvyJBwq+4hqVBwxUmP=W_36jg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:02:39 -0700
Cc: Young Lee <younglee.tx@gmail.com>, Jensen Zhang <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, "Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR)" <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com>, Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>, kaigao@scu.edu.cn, alto-chairs@ietf.org, alto-ads@ietf.org, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8E43B1BA-2468-44E8-ABE8-A379E9FCEB2F@amsl.com>
References: <20220818213747.F3B6316E4B8@rfcpa.amsl.com> <7d750c39.b0d1.182bbc39bd8.Coremail.kaigao@scu.edu.cn> <A3E064B8-7F26-4831-9422-CEA5B54DD4E8@amsl.com> <58cae015.bc17.182cd6c781b.Coremail.kaigao@scu.edu.cn> <EF7A0133-B3DE-4F81-BF2C-A1B154121736@amsl.com> <46a853f9.c3c1.182d4528897.Coremail.kaigao@scu.edu.cn> <9673BC03-1130-4EC0-BCB1-2E7CACB3884B@amsl.com> <E20433E2-2645-4AB3-8BC1-5578A412091E@amsl.com> <CAAbpuypfRC5MYCR0WssE9Go8EpcTjjUYdMtoxK84KLqu1OLEBg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGHSPWNgZOBAX0wUoBCvtDzCL=LVK=VgYZ5hnGYa9KyPquy+sg@mail.gmail.com> <8B30119F-4C35-470D-AB80-C074ECDEEDF9@amsl.com> <CANUuoLr9BdvucCBrFC=Uuhq8=CvyJBwq+4hqVBwxUmP=W_36jg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Y. Richard Yang" <yry@cs.yale.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/5NqNxifCmufEXonvHk83ZIQPy8U>
Subject: Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-25> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 21:04:19 -0000
Hi Richard, Apologies if we missed your earlier message! We have now marked your approval and will continue with the publication process. Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On Sep 21, 2022, at 2:01 PM, Y. Richard Yang <yry@cs.yale.edu> wrote: > > Hi Sandy, > > It looks that my reply might have been lost. I also approve the publication of the document. Could you please update for me as well? > > Thanks! > Richard > > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 4:59 PM Sandy Ginoza <sginoza@amsl.com> wrote: > Hi Young, > > Thank you for your review and reply. We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 page <http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9275>. > > We will continue with the process once we hear from Richard. > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/sg > > > > On Sep 20, 2022, at 6:47 AM, Young Lee <younglee.tx@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Lynne, > > > > The document looks good to me. I approve the publication of this document. > > > > Thanks. > > Young > > > > 2022년 9월 7일 (수) 오후 4:56, Jensen Zhang <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com>님이 작성: > > Hi Lynne, > > > > The document looks good to me. I approve the publication of this document. > > > > Thanks, > > Jensen > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2022 at 1:46 AM Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com> wrote: > > Dear authors and *AD, > > > > Checking in with you regarding the status of this document. Please let us know whether further changes are needed. > > > > The AUTH48 status page is here: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9275 > > > > If no further changes are needed, please note that we will need explicit approvals from each of you. > > > > Thank you! > > > > RFC Editor/lb > > > > > On Aug 25, 2022, at 8:53 AM, Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, Kai. No worries, and thank you for confirming! > > > > > > RFC Editor/lb > > > > > >> On Aug 25, 2022, at 2:25 AM, kaigao@scu.edu.cn wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Lynne, > > >> > > >> Sorry for the confusion. I have no further comments at this point. > > >> > > >> Thanks a lot! > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Kai > > >> > > >> > > >> > -----Original Messages----- > > >> > From: "Lynne Bartholomew" <lbartholomew@amsl.com> > > >> > Sent Time: 2022-08-24 23:38:53 (Wednesday) > > >> > To: kaigao@scu.edu.cn > > >> > Cc: alto-ads@ietf.org, "RFC System" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, younglee.tx@gmail.com, sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com, yry@cs.yale.edu, jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com, alto-chairs@ietf.org, vijay.gurbani@gmail.com, "Martin Duke" <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > >> > Subject: Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-25> for your review > > >> > > > >> > Hi, Kai. > > >> > > > >> > We found one new comment below -- your clarification regarding the boundary lines. Thank you for the explanation! > > >> > > > >> > If we missed any other new comments from you, please let us know. > > >> > > > >> > Thanks again! > > >> > > > >> > RFC Editor/lb > > >> > > > >> > > On Aug 23, 2022, at 6:16 PM, kaigao@scu.edu.cn wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > Hi Lynne, > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks for the updates! Please see the comments inline. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > p.s. I switch to another edit mode on the mail client. Hope it handles the ">" correctly. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Best, > > >> > > > > >> > > Kai > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -----Original Messages----- > > >> > > > From: "Lynne Bartholomew" <lbartholomew@amsl.com> > > >> > > > Sent Time: 2022-08-24 01:46:30 (Wednesday) > > >> > > > To: kaigao@scu.edu.cn, alto-ads@ietf.org > > >> > > > Cc: "RFC System" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, younglee.tx@gmail.com, sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com, yry@cs.yale.edu, jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com, alto-chairs@ietf.org, vijay.gurbani@gmail.com, "Martin Duke" <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > >> > > > Subject: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-25> for your review > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Dear Kai and *AD (Zahed or Martin), > > >> > > > > > >> > > > * Zahed or Martin, as we don't know whether (1) the changes to "Content-Length:" values and (2) the updated '"property-map": {' entry at the end of Section 8.3 would be considered editorial or technical, please review, and let us know if you approve these updates. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Kai, thank you for your prompt reply and updated XML file! We have made further updates per your notes below. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- It appears that "we also find that multipart examples are missing the last boundary line" refers to the changes to "Content-Length:" values. If we misunderstand this note, please clarify. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > We add a boundary line to each multipart example before recalculating the "Content-Length" value. > > >> > > > > >> > > > -- Regarding our question 11) (the meaning of "intents"): We have added a citation and Informative Reference entry for draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-concepts-definitions; thank you for the suggestion. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- Regarding our question 13) and your reply: We updated as follows; thank you for your advice on these as well: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Line 1138-1140: > > >> > > > > The content is a simple string. I am not sure which type fits the best here, though (maybe empty?). > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Changed to <artwork>; <sourcecode> might not be appropriate for a simple string. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Line 1375-1379, Line 1420-1424, Line 1713-1717: > > >> > > > > The content is related to JSON but more like type definitions instead of data. Looks like "json-dtd" to me but I'm fine with using "json" here. By the way, I see in the XML of RFC 9240, such definitions are encoded as <artwork>. Maybe <artwork> could also be an option here? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Changed to <artwork> per the XML of RFC 9240. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Line 1394-1413, Line 1626-1671, Line 1771-1790, Line 1904-1949, Line 2170-2188, Line 2189-2239, Line 2310-2340, Line 2341-2409, Line 2422-2484, Line 2490-2505, Line 2509-2530, Line 2534-2540, Line 2583-2613, Line 2614-2676: > > >> > > > > It seems to me that "http-message" is more suitable here as the content contains the HTTP header. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thank you for making these updates in the XML. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Line 1519-1521, Line 1855-1857: > > >> > > > > Maybe "rbnf" is more suitable here. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thank you for making these XML updates as well. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > = = = = = = = = > > >> > > > > > >> > > > The latest files are posted here: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9275.txt > > >> > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9275.pdf > > >> > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9275.html > > >> > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9275.xml > > >> > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9275-diff.html > > >> > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9275-alt-diff.html > > >> > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9275-rfcdiff.html > > >> > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9275-auth48diff.html > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9275-xmldiff1.html > > >> > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9275-xmldiff2.html > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks again! > > >> > > > > > >> > > > RFC Editor/lb > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Aug 20, 2022, at 7:58 AM, kaigao@scu.edu.cn wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Dear RFC Editor, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks a lot for the review! Please see our responses inline. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > In addition to the comments, we also find that multipart examples are missing the last boundary line. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > The attached XML adopts some of the changes (preferred <sourcecode> type, updated examples). Please let us know if there are further questions. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Best, > > >> > > > > Kai > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -----Original Messages----- > > >> > > > > > From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > > >> > > > > > Sent Time: 2022-08-19 05:37:47 (Friday) > > >> > > > > > To: kaigao@scu.edu.cn, younglee.tx@gmail.com, sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com, yry@cs.yale.edu, jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com > > >> > > > > > Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, alto-ads@ietf.org, alto-chairs@ietf.org, vijay.gurbani@gmail.com, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > >> > > > > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-25> for your review > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Authors, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 1) <!-- [rfced] We found the following "TODO" and "FIXME" comments in > > >>>>>>> the provided XML file. Please confirm that the following items were > > >>>>>>> addressed. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> TODO: Error Handling > > >>>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>> TODO: the remaining issue is where to specify the json-merge-patch > > >>>>>>> capability for each node > > >>>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>> FIXME: path-vector cannot be used in multi-cost, also no reason > > >>>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>> FIXME: using resource-id header in MIME part --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We confirm the items are addressed. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we updated the document title to follow the style of the published companion document RFC 9240. Please let us know any concerns. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> An ALTO Extension: Path Vector > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Currently: > > >>>>>>> An Extension for Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO): > > >>>>>>> Path Vector --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Please provide any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Keywords: network visibility, abstract network element, shared bottleneck > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] Abstract: In the following sentence, should "specified components" be instead "specific components"? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Current: > > >>>>>>> This is useful for applications whose performance is impacted > > >>>>>>> by specified components of a network on the end-to-end paths, e.g., > > >>>>>>> they may infer that several paths share common links and prevent > > >>>>>>> traffic bottlenecks by avoiding such paths. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Nice catch! Yes, it should be "specific components". > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 1: Does reordering the end of the following sentence improve readability? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Current: > > >>>>>>> While the existing extensions are sufficient for many overlay > > >>>>>>> applications, the QoE of some overlay applications depends not only > > >>>>>>> on the cost information for end-to-end paths but also on particular > > >>>>>>> components of a network on the paths and their properties. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Perhaps: > > >>>>>>> While the existing extensions are sufficient for many overlay > > >>>>>>> applications, the QoE of some overlay applications depends not only > > >>>>>>> on the cost information for end-to-end paths but also on particular > > >>>>>>> components and their properties on the paths of a network. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Indeed the original sentence is a bit difficult to parse. We propose the following text: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > While numerical/ordinal cost values for end-to-end paths provided by > > >> > > > > the existing extensions is sufficient to optimize the QoE of many > > >> > > > > overlay applications, the QoE of some overlay applications also > > >> > > > > depends on the properties of particular components on the paths. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 1: We had trouble following this sentence. Does making the sentence more parallel improve readability? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> Despite the claimed benefits, ISPs are not likely to expose raw > > >>>>>>> details on their network paths: first for the sake of topology hiding > > >>>>>>> requirement, second because it may increase volume and computation > > >>>>>>> overhead, and last because applications do not necessarily need all > > >>>>>>> the network path details and are likely not able to understand them. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Suggested (using the "because" construction for the first reason and clarifying who has the topology-hiding requirement and what things may increase volume and overhead): > > >>>>>>> Despite the claimed benefits, ISPs are not likely to expose raw > > >>>>>>> details on their network paths: first because ISPs have requirements > > >>>>>>> to hide their network topologies, second because these details may > > >>>>>>> increase volume and computation overhead, and last because applications > > >>>>>>> do not necessarily need all the network path details and are likely not > > >>>>>>> able to understand them. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] Sections 1, 3, and 5: FYI, we have updated the extension label "Unified Property Map" to "entity property map" to match the label used by RFC 9240 (previously draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new), which defines the extension. Please review these updates and let us know if any changes are necessary. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 2: FYI, we have removed the second sentence as it is already covered in RFC 8174: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > > >>>>>>> "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and > > >>>>>>> "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in > > >>>>>>> BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all > > >>>>>>> capitals, as shown here. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> When the words appear in lower case, they are to be interpreted with > > >>>>>>> their natural language meanings. > > >>>>>>> --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Sounds good. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.1: Is the punctuation (the comma and the > > >>>>>>> period after "Mbps") needed? We ask because we do not see any > > >>>>>>> punctuation following the next two such entries after mention of > > >>>>>>> "capacity region". > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> x <= 100 Mbps, > > >>>>>>> y <= 100 Mbps. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Perhaps: > > >>>>>>> x <= 100 Mbps > > >>>>>>> y <= 100 Mbps --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I tend to remove the command but keep the period as it is the end of the sentence. Other mentions of capacity region are in the middle of a sentence. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.1: Please review the use of "->" and " - " in this section. Should the " - " pairs below use double dashes (like shown in Figure 1) to more clearly indicate that bandwidth between directly connected nodes is being discussed? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> * The ALTO server must allow the client to distinguish the common > > >>>>>>> ANE shared by "eh1 -> eh2" and "eh1 -> eh4", e.g., "eh1 - sw1" and > > >>>>>>> "sw1 - sw5" in Case 1. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> * The ALTO server must expose abstract information on the properties > > >>>>>>> of the ANEs used by "eh1 -> eh2" and "eh1 -> eh4". For example, > > >>>>>>> an ALTO server can either expose the available bandwidth between > > >>>>>>> "eh1 - sw1", "sw1 - sw5", "sw5 - sw7", "sw5 - sw6", "sw6 - sw7", > > >>>>>>> "sw7 - sw2", "sw7 - sw4", "sw2 - eh2", "sw4 - eh4" in Case 1, or > > >>>>>>> expose 3 abstract elements "A", "B" and "C", which represent the > > >>>>>>> linear constraints that define the same capacity region in Case 1. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree it is better to use double dashes to be coherent with Figure 1. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] Figure 3 and Section 6.4.1: We had trouble following > > >>>>>>> the meaning of "intents". Do "Data Transfer Intents" and "SDN > > >>>>>>> network intents" mean "Intent-Based Data Transfer" and > > >>>>>>> "Intent-Based SDN" or something else? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>> | | On-demand resource | > > >>>>>>> (Data | | (Network allocation, demand | > > >>>>>>> Transfer | | Resource vector, etc. | > > >>>>>>> Intents) | | Constraints) (Non-ALTO interfaces)| > > >>>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>> How the client makes resource requests based on the information and > > >>>>>>> how the resource allocation is achieved respectively depend on > > >>>>>>> interfaces between the management system and the users or a higher- > > >>>>>>> layer protocol (e.g., SDN network intents or MPLS tunnels), which are > > >>>>>>> out of the scope of this document. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > The term "intent" here is a bit misleading. "Data Transfer Intents" here should be interpreted as "potential data transfers that the clients intend to schedule". Maybe we can replace "Data Transfer Intents" with "Potential Data Transfers". > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > The term "SDN network intents" is from intent-based SDN. An intent is basically a request to the SDN system to route the traffic or make bandwidth reservations. Maybe we can add an informative reference to https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-nmrg-ibn-concepts-definitions-04.html? > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 12) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.2.1: FYI, to improve readability, we have moved the paragraph describing Figure 5 to be in front of the figure instead of after it. Please let us know of any concerns. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode > > >>>>>>> element in the XML file to ensure correctness. Please note that we > > >>>>>>> set the fourth and subsequent sourcecode items to "json". > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> If the current list of preferred values for "type" > > >>>>>>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt) > > >>>>>>> does not contain an applicable type, please let us know. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Line 1138-1140: > > >> > > > > The content is a simple string. I am not sure which type fits the best here, though (maybe empty?). > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Line 1375-1379, Line 1420-1424, Line 1713-1717: > > >> > > > > The content is related to JSON but more like type definitions instead of data. Looks like "json-dtd" to me but I'm fine with using "json" here. By the way, I see in the XML of RFC 9240, such definitions are encoded as <artwork>. Maybe <artwork> could also be an option here? > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Line 1394-1413, Line 1626-1671, Line 1771-1790, Line 1904-1949, Line 2170-2188, Line 2189-2239, Line 2310-2340, Line 2341-2409, Line 2422-2484, Line 2490-2505, Line 2509-2530, Line 2534-2540, Line 2583-2613, Line 2614-2676: > > >> > > > > It seems to me that "http-message" is more suitable here as the content contains the HTTP header. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Line 1519-1521, Line 1855-1857: > > >> > > > > Maybe "rbnf" is more suitable here. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 14) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.2.2: We removed "2021" here and, to avoid > > >>>>>>> constraining the timeframe with a specific year, we used "At the time > > >>>>>>> of this writing". Also, please note that (1) for ease of the reader, > > >>>>>>> (2) to avoid confusion with "AR" as used in Section 4.1 to mean > > >>>>>>> "additional requirement", and (3) because "AR/VR" is not used again > > >>>>>>> in this document, we changed "AR/VR" to "augmented reality / virtual > > >>>>>>> reality". Please let us know any objections. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> A growing trend in today's applications (2021) is to bring storage > > >>>>>>> and computation closer to the end users for better QoE, such as > > >>>>>>> Content Delivery Network (CDN), AR/VR, and cloud gaming, as reported > > >>>>>>> in various documents (e.g., [SEREDGE] and [MOWIE]). > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Currently: > > >>>>>>> At the time of this writing, a growing trend in today's applications > > >>>>>>> is to bring storage and computation closer to the end users for > > >>>>>>> better QoE, such as CDNs, augmented reality / virtual reality, and > > >>>>>>> cloud gaming, as reported in various documents (e.g., [SEREDGE] and > > >>>>>>> [MOWIE]). --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 15) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.2.2 and Figure 7: The abbreviations for "gigabytes" and "terabytes" ("G" and "T") used here are unorthodox. May we update to "GB" and "TB"? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> For example, Figure 6 illustrates a typical edge-cloud scenario where > > >>>>>>> memory is measured in Gigabytes (G) and storage is measured in > > >>>>>>> Terabytes (T). > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Suggested: > > >>>>>>> For example, Figure 6 illustrates a typical edge-cloud scenario where > > >>>>>>> memory is measured in gigabytes (GB) and storage is measured in > > >>>>>>> terabytes (TB). > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Figure 7 (also adding spaces to match examples in Section 4.2.1): > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> ane1: latency = 5 ms cpu = 2 memory = 8 GB storage = 10 TB > > >>>>>>> (On premise, a) > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> ane2: latency = 20 ms cpu = 4 memory = 8 GB storage = 10 TB > > >>>>>>> (Site-radio Edge Node 1) > > >>>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>> --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 16) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.2.2: FYI, to improve readability, we have moved the paragraph describing Figure 7 to be in front of the figure instead of after it. Please let us know of any concerns. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 17) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.2.2: Does "GPU" stand for "Graphics > > >>>>>>> Processing Unit" here, or should it be "CPU" as used earlier in this > > >>>>>>> section? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> With the extension defined in this document, an ALTO server can > > >>>>>>> selectively reveal the CDNs and service edges that reside along the > > >>>>>>> paths between different end hosts and/or the cloud servers, together > > >>>>>>> with their properties such as capabilities (e.g., storage, GPU) and > > >>>>>>> available Service Level Agreement (SLA) plans. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I think we intend to say "Graphics Processing Unit" here. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 18) <!-- [rfced] Section 5: This sentence is difficult to parse. If > > >>>>>>> neither suggestion below is correct, please clarify the relationship > > >>>>>>> between "learn", "investigating", "identify", and "retrieve". > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> Thus, an ALTO client can learn about the ANEs that are important to > > >>>>>>> assess the QoE of different <source, destination> pairs by > > >>>>>>> investigating the corresponding Path Vector value (AR1), identify > > >>>>>>> common ANEs if an ANE appears in the Path Vectors of multiple > > >>>>>>> <source, destination> pairs (AR2), and retrieve the properties of the > > >>>>>>> ANEs by searching the Unified Property Map (AR3). > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Suggestion #1: > > >>>>>>> Thus, an ALTO client can learn about the ANEs that are important for > > >>>>>>> assessing the QoE of different <source, destination> pairs by > > >>>>>>> investigating the corresponding Path Vector value (AR1), identifying > > >>>>>>> common ANEs if an ANE appears in the Path Vectors of multiple > > >>>>>>> <source, destination> pairs (AR2), and retrieving the properties of > > >>>>>>> the ANEs by searching the entity property map (AR3). > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Suggestion #2: > > >>>>>>> Thus, an ALTO client can learn about the ANEs that are important > > >>>>>>> for assessing the QoE of different <source, destination> pairs by > > >>>>>>> investigating the corresponding Path Vector value (AR1) and can > > >>>>>>> also (1) identify common ANEs if an ANE appears in the Path Vectors > > >>>>>>> of multiple <source, destination> pairs (AR2) and (2) retrieve the > > >>>>>>> properties of the ANEs by searching the entity property map (AR3). --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We prefer suggestion #2. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 19) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.1.2: Does "their" refer to the network > > >>>>>>> components (mentioned in the previous sentence) or to "A persistent > > >>>>>>> ANE" (in which case it should be "its")? If the suggested text > > >>>>>>> (assuming that "their" should be "its") is not correct, please > > >>>>>>> clarify. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> A persistent ANE has a persistent ID that is > > >>>>>>> registered in a Property Map, together with their properties. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Suggested: > > >>>>>>> A persistent ANE has a persistent ID that is > > >>>>>>> registered in a property map, together with its properties. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 20) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.3: We had trouble following this sentence. > > >>>>>>> We updated it as follows. If this update is incorrect, please > > >>>>>>> clarify "on demand, and potentially based on". > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> 1. ANEs may be constructed on demand, and potentially based on the > > >>>>>>> requested properties (See Section 5.1 for more details). > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Currently: > > >>>>>>> 1. ANEs may be constructed on demand and, potentially, based on the > > >>>>>>> requested properties (see Section 5.1 for more details). --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 21) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.4.1: This sentence did not parse. We changed > > >>>>>>> "this document that the" to "this document in that the". If this > > >>>>>>> change is incorrect, please clarify the text. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> The encoding in [NOVA] differs from the > > >>>>>>> Path Vector response defined in this document that the Path Vector > > >>>>>>> part and Property Map part are put in the same JSON object. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Currently: > > >>>>>>> The encoding > > >>>>>>> in [NOVA] differs from the Path Vector response defined in this > > >>>>>>> document in that the Path Vector part and property map part are > > >>>>>>> placed in the same JSON object. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 22) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.4.2: We had trouble following the use of "presents" in this sentence. We did not see information in Section 5.1.2 on how an ephemeral ANE presents a persistent entity ID. We did see text that said the ALTO server provides this information. How may we update this sentence? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> The persistent entity ID property is the entity identifier of the > > >>>>>>> persistent ANE which an ephemeral ANE presents (See Section 5.1.2 for > > >>>>>>> details). --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > The idea is that all ANEs that appear in the path vector response are "ephemeral". Some ephemeral ANEs may represent a network component (i.e., persistent ANE) whose properties can be queried from another entity map service. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We propose the following text: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > This document enables the discovery of a persistent ANE by > > >> > > > > by exposing its entity identifier as the persistent entity ID > > >> > > > > property of an ephemeral ANE in the path vector response. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 23) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.4.3: As it appears that "they" in this > > >>>>>>> sentence means "service edges", we updated the text accordingly. > > >>>>>>> Please let us know if this is incorrect. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original ("life cycle ... are" has been corrected): > > >>>>>>> As the life cycle of service edges are > > >>>>>>> typically long, they may contain information that is not specific to > > >>>>>>> the query. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Currently: > > >>>>>>> As the life cycles of service edges are > > >>>>>>> typically long, the service edges may contain information that is not > > >>>>>>> specific to the query. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 24) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.5.1: We did not see any instructions in > > >>>>>>> Section 8.3.4.3 of RFC 7285 ("the client can either choose another > > >>>>>>> server (if one is available) or ..."). Should "instructions" be > > >>>>>>> "guidance"? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> Otherwise, the client MUST > > >>>>>>> discard the response and SHOULD follow the instructions in > > >>>>>>> Section 8.3.4.3 of [RFC7285] to handle the error. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Yes, please use "guidance". > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 25) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.2.6: We only see one parameter listed in this > > >>>>>>> paragraph and three parameters in the parameters list. Please > > >>>>>>> clarify "both parameters"; was "permits parameters both with and > > >>>>>>> without double quotes" intended? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> type: The type parameter is mandatory and MUST be "application/alto- > > >>>>>>> costmap+json". Note that [RFC2387] permits both parameters with > > >>>>>>> and without the double quotes. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > It is "permits parameters both with and without double quotes". > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 26) <!-- [rfced] Sections 7.2.6 and 7.3.6: The all-capitals "NOT" is > > >>>>>>> unusual, and could be confusing to some readers, because it is not > > >>>>>>> used as part of a key word per RFC 2119. May we change "NOT" to > > >>>>>>> "not" in these sentences and apply the <strong> element in the XML > > >>>>>>> file, per Section 2.50 of RFC 7991 > > >>>>>>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991)? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The "not"s would then be emphasized in the .html and .pdf output > > >>>>>>> files for this document. For an example of how this emphasis would > > >>>>>>> look, please see the first two instances of "singleton" in > > >>>>>>> Section 3.4 of <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9198.html> or > > >>>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9198.pdf>. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original text: > > >>>>>>> If any part is > > >>>>>>> NOT present, the client MUST discard the received information and > > >>>>>>> send another request if necessary. > > >>>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>> If any part is > > >>>>>>> NOT present, the client MUST discard the received information and > > >>>>>>> send another request if necessary. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Suggested (in the XML file): > > >>>>>>> If any part is <strong>not</strong> present, the ... --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed changes. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 27) <!-- [rfced] Sections 7.2.6 and 7.3.6: These sentences are confusing > > >>>>>>> as written, as RFC 2387 discusses the "object root" and the "root > > >>>>>>> body part" but does not mention "Path Vector" or "vector". May we > > >>>>>>> update as suggested? If not, please clarify the text. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Also, should the other instances of "root object" in this document be > > >>>>>>> updated as well? We do not see "root object" used in RFC 2387. > > >>>>>>> If yes, please specify how to update. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> According to [RFC2387], the Path Vector part, whose media type is the > > >>>>>>> same as the "type" parameter of the multipart response message, is > > >>>>>>> the root object. > > >>>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>> According to [RFC2387], the Path Vector part, whose media type is the > > >>>>>>> same as the "type" parameter of the multipart response message, is > > >>>>>>> the root object. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Suggested: > > >>>>>>> The Path Vector part, whose media type is the same as the "type" > > >>>>>>> parameter of the multipart response message, is the root body part > > >>>>>>> as defined in [RFC2387]. > > >>>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>> The Path Vector part, whose media type is the same as the "type" > > >>>>>>> parameter of the multipart response message, is the root body part > > >>>>>>> as defined in [RFC2387]. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed changes. The other "root object" should be replaced with "object root" or "root body part" as well. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 28) <!-- [rfced] Sections 7.2.6 and 7.3.6: Would you like to add > > >>>>>>> spaces between the square brackets and the quotes for these two > > >>>>>>> items, as was done for other such items (e.g., [ "PID1" ])? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> "PID1": { "PID2": ["ANE1"] } > > >>>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>> "ipv4:192.0.2.2": { "ipv4:192.0.2.18": ["ANE1"] } > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Perhaps: > > >>>>>>> "PID1": { "PID2": [ "ANE1" ] } > > >>>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>> "ipv4:192.0.2.2": { "ipv4:192.0.2.18": [ "ANE1" ] } --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Yes. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 29) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.3.3: We see "ReqEndpointCostMap" in > > >>>>>>> Section 4.2.2 of RFC 8189 but not "ReqEndpointCost" or > > >>>>>>> "ReqEndpointcostMap". May we update as suggested, to match RFC 8189? > > >>>>>>> If not, please provide clarifying text. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Also, please review the capitalization of the following terms and let us know if any changes are necessary (e.g., should "cost" in "PVReqEndpointcost" be "PVReqEndpointCost"?) > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> PVEndpointcostCapabilities > > >>>>>>> PVFilteredCostMapCapabilities > > >>>>>>> PVReqEndpointCost > > >>>>>>> PVReqEndpointcost > > >>>>>>> PVReqFilteredCostMap > > >>>>>>> ReqEndpointCost > > >>>>>>> ReqEndpointcostMap > > >>>>>>> ReqFilteredCostMap > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> This document > > >>>>>>> extends the input parameters to an Endpoint Cost Service, which is > > >>>>>>> defined as a JSON object of type ReqEndpointCost in Section 4.2.2 of > > >>>>>>> [RFC8189], with a data format indicated by the media type > > >>>>>>> "application/alto-endpointcostparams+json", which is a JSON object of > > >>>>>>> type PVReqEndpointCost: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> object { > > >>>>>>> [EntityPropertyName ane-property-names<0..*>;] > > >>>>>>> } PVReqEndpointcost : ReqEndpointcostMap; > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Suggested: > > >>>>>>> This document > > >>>>>>> extends the input parameters to an Endpoint Cost Service, which is > > >>>>>>> defined as a JSON object of type ReqEndpointCostMap in Section 4.2.2 > > >>>>>>> of [RFC8189], with a data format indicated by the media type > > >>>>>>> "application/alto-endpointcostparams+json", which is a JSON object of > > >>>>>>> type PVReqEndpointCost: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> object { > > >>>>>>> [EntityPropertyName ane-property-names<0..*>;] > > >>>>>>> } PVReqEndpointcost : ReqEndpointCostMap; --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the change. For consistency, we propose to use the following terms (capitalize "C" in cost): > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > PVEndpointcostCapabilities => PVEndpointCostCapabilities > > >> > > > > PVFilteredCostMapCapabilities > > >> > > > > PVReqEndpointCost => PVReqEndpointCostMap > > >> > > > > PVReqEndpointcost => PVReqEndpointCostMap > > >> > > > > PVReqFilteredCostMap > > >> > > > > ReqEndpointCost => ReqEndpointCostMap > > >> > > > > ReqEndpointcostMap => ReqEndpointCostMap > > >> > > > > ReqFilteredCostMap > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 30) <!-- [rfced] Section 7.3.6: Because RFC 7285 does not use > > >>>>>>> "multipart/related" or "multipart", we changed "[RFC7285]" to > > >>>>>>> "[RFC2387]" per RFC 2387 and per the (otherwise) same sentence in the > > >>>>>>> second paragraph of Section 7.2.6. Please let us know any > > >>>>>>> objections. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> The "Content-Type" header of the response MUST be "multipart/related" > > >>>>>>> as defined by [RFC7285] with the following parameters: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Currently: > > >>>>>>> The "Content-Type" header field of the response MUST be "multipart/related" > > >>>>>>> as defined by [RFC2387], with the following parameters: --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 31) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.1: FYI, to improve readability, we have moved the paragraph describing Figure 10 to be in front of the figure instead of after it. Please let us know of any concerns. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 32) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.1: We could not see any indication of message > > >>>>>>> contents in Figure 10. If the suggested text is not correct, please > > >>>>>>> clarify the meaning. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> In this document, Figure 10 is used to illustrate the message > > >>>>>>> contents. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Suggested: > > >>>>>>> Figure 10 illustrates the network properties and thus the message > > >>>>>>> contents. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 33) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.2: This item reads oddly. Are some words > > >>>>>>> missing? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> * "multicost-pv": A Multipart Endpoint Cost Service with both Multi- > > >>>>>>> Cost and Path Vector. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Possibly: > > >>>>>>> * "multicost-pv": A multipart Endpoint Cost Service with both a Multi- > > >>>>>>> Cost resource and a Path Vector resource. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We propose the following text: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > * "multicost-pv": A multipart Endpoint Cost Service with both the > > >> > > > > Multi-Cost extension and Path Vector extension enabled. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 34) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.2: Section 6.5 does not mention "path-vector"; > > >>>>>>> this sentence is the first mention of it. We updated this sentence > > >>>>>>> so that the information is clearer. Please let us know any > > >>>>>>> objections. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> To enable the extension defined in this document, the "path- > > >>>>>>> vector" cost type (Section 6.5) is defined in the "cost-types" of the > > >>>>>>> "meta" field, and is included in the "cost-type-names" of resources > > >>>>>>> "filtered-cost-map-pv" and "endpoint-cost-pv". > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Currently: > > >>>>>>> To enable the extension > > >>>>>>> defined in this document, the Path Vector cost type (Section 6.5), > > >>>>>>> represented by "path-vector" below, is defined in the "cost-types" of > > >>>>>>> the "meta" field and is included in the "cost-type-names" of > > >>>>>>> resources "filtered-cost-map-pv" and "endpoint-cost-pv". --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the propose change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 35) <!-- [rfced] Sections 8.3 and 8.4: Would it improve readability to update "array of ANEName" to "array of data type ANEName"? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> The first part returns the array > > >>>>>>> of ANEName for each source and destination pair. > > >>>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>> The first part returns the array > > >>>>>>> of ANEName for each valid source and destination pair. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed changes. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 36) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.3: We could not see a relationship between > > >>>>>>> Section 3.1 of draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new (now RFC 9240) and > > >>>>>>> this sentence (i.e., we did not see any mention of "empty", "omit", > > >>>>>>> or "no properties". Please confirm that this sentence will be clear > > >>>>>>> to readers. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> The second part returns an empty Property Map. Note that the ANE > > >>>>>>> entries are omitted since they have no properties (See Section 3.1 of > > >>>>>>> [I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new]). --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > The reference should be Section 8.3 of RFC 9240, which says: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > If it is absent, the Server returns a property > > >> > > > > value equal to the literal string "{}" for all the entity > > >> > > > > identifiers of the "entities" field for which at least one > > >> > > > > property is defined. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > and we propose the following changes: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > OLD EXAMPLE: > > >> > > > > { > > >> > > > > "meta": { > > >> > > > > "dependent-vtags": [ > > >> > > > > { > > >> > > > > "resource-id": "filtered-cost-map-pv.costmap", > > >> > > > > "tag": "d827f484cb66ce6df6b5077cb8562b0a" > > >> > > > > } > > >> > > > > ] > > >> > > > > }, > > >> > > > > "property-map": { > > >> > > > > } > > >> > > > > } > > >> > > > > NEW EXAMPLE: > > >> > > > > { > > >> > > > > "meta": { > > >> > > > > "dependent-vtags": [ > > >> > > > > { > > >> > > > > "resource-id": "filtered-cost-map-pv.costmap", > > >> > > > > "tag": "d827f484cb66ce6df6b5077cb8562b0a" > > >> > > > > } > > >> > > > > ] > > >> > > > > }, > > >> > > > > "property-map": { > > >> > > > > ".ane:L1": {}, > > >> > > > > ".ane:L2": {} > > >> > > > > } > > >> > > > > } > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > NEW TEXT: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > The second part returns the property map. Note that the > > >> > > > > properties of the ANE entries is equal to the literal > > >> > > > > string "{}" (See Section 8.3 of [RFC9240]). --> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 37) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.4: Regarding these two paragraphs, Figure 10, > > >>>>>>> and the example shown after the "Both NET1 and NET2" paragraph: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> a) The "[ "NET3", "L1", "NET1" ]" entry in the example does not > > >>>>>>> appear to us to match "traverses NET2, L1 and NET1" in the text. > > >>>>>>> Please confirm that the text and example are correct. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> It should be NET3, L1 and NET1. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> b) We do not see how "ane-props.ane:MEC2" corresponds to NET3; it > > >>>>>>> appears to us to correspond to NET2 and AGGR2 (we see AGGR2 listed as > > >>>>>>> an aggregate of NET2 and L2 in the "Under certain scenarios" > > >>>>>>> paragraph). Please confirm that "NET3" is correct. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> It should be NET2. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> The response consists of two parts. The first part returns the array > > >>>>>>> of ANEName for each valid source and destination pair. As one can > > >>>>>>> see in Figure 10, flow 192.0.2.34 -> 192.0.2.2 traverses NET2, L1 and > > >>>>>>> NET1, and flows 192.0.2.34 -> 192.0.2.50 and 2001:db8::3:1 -> > > >>>>>>> 2001:db8::4:1 traverse NET2, L2 and NET3. > > >>>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>> Both NET1 and NET2 have a mobile edge deployed, i.e., MEC1 in NET1 > > >>>>>>> and MEC2 in NET2. Assume the ANEName for MEC1 and MEC2 are "MEC1" > > >>>>>>> and "MEC2" and their properties can be retrieved from the Property > > >>>>>>> Map "ane-props". Thus, the "persistent-entity-id" property of NET1 > > >>>>>>> and NET3 are "ane-props.ane:MEC1" and "ane-props.ane:MEC2" > > >>>>>>> respectively. > > >>>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>> "endpoint-cost-map": { > > >>>>>>> "ipv4:192.0.2.34": { > > >>>>>>> "ipv4:192.0.2.2": [ "NET3", "L1", "NET1" ], > > >>>>>>> "ipv4:192.0.2.50": [ "NET3", "L2", "NET2" ] > > >>>>>>> }, > > >>>>>>> "ipv6:2001:db8::3:1": { > > >>>>>>> "ipv6:2001:db8::4:1": [ "NET3", "L2", "NET2" ] > > >>>>>>> ... > > >>>>>>> ".ane:NET1": { > > >>>>>>> "max-reservable-bandwidth": 50000000000, > > >>>>>>> "persistent-entity-id": "ane-props.ane:MEC1" > > >>>>>>> }, > > >>>>>>> ".ane:NET2": { > > >>>>>>> "max-reservable-bandwidth": 50000000000, > > >>>>>>> "persistent-entity-id": "ane-props.ane:MEC2" --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 38) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.5: These lines result in "Warning: Too long > > >>>>>>> line found" xml2rfc output for the .txt file. May we add line breaks > > >>>>>>> as suggested? If not, please specify where line breaks should be > > >>>>>>> placed. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> event: application/merge-patch+json, ecspvsub1.ecsmap@alto.example.com > > >>>>>>> data: <Merge patch for endpoint-cost-map-update> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> event: application/merge-patch+json, ecspvsub1.propmap@alto.example.com > > >>>>>>> data: <Merge patch for property-map-update> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Suggested: > > >>>>>>> event: application/merge-patch+json, > > >>>>>>> ecspvsub1.ecsmap@alto.example.com > > >>>>>>> data: <Merge patch for endpoint-cost-map-update> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> event: application/merge-patch+json, > > >>>>>>> ecspvsub1.propmap@alto.example.com > > >>>>>>> data: <Merge patch for property-map-update> --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed changes. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 39) <!-- [rfced] Section 9.4: Does "calendar extension" here mean > > >>>>>>> "ALTO Calendar extension" (Section 5.2.4 of RFC 8896), "Cost > > >>>>>>> Calendar extension", or something else? (It appears to us to > > >>>>>>> mean "Cost Calendar extension", but we need to confirm.) > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> The > > >>>>>>> Path Vector part is calendared in a compatible way, and the Property > > >>>>>>> Map part is not affected by the calendar extension. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Yes, the text is referring to the ALTO Cost Calendar extension (RFC 8896). > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 40) <!-- [rfced] Section 10.1: We had trouble following this sentence, > > >>>>>>> as we only see "constraints" in RFC 7285 and we see "A Client is > > >>>>>>> therefore allowed to express either "constraints" or "or-constraints" > > >>>>>>> but not both" in Section 3.6.2 of RFC 8189. Please let us know if > > >>>>>>> any updates are needed to clarify this text. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> [RFC7285] and [RFC8189] allow ALTO clients to specify the > > >>>>>>> "constraints" and "or-constraints" tests to better filter the result. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Possibly: > > >>>>>>> ALTO clients are permitted to specify either the "constraints" test > > >>>>>>> [RFC7285] [RFC8189] or the "or-constraints" test [RFC8189] to better > > >>>>>>> filter the results. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 41) <!-- [rfced] Section 10.2: It was difficult to determine what "This > > >>>>>>> extension" refers to, given "incremental update extension" four lines > > >>>>>>> earlier. Because "This extension" appears to mean "The extension > > >>>>>>> specified in this document" here, we updated accordingly. If this is > > >>>>>>> incorrect, please provide clarifying text. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> This extension gives an example of using a multipart message to > > >>>>>>> encode the responses from two specific ALTO information resources: a > > >>>>>>> Filtered Cost Map or an Endpoint Cost Service, and a Property Map. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Currently: > > >>>>>>> The extension specified in this document gives an example of using a > > >>>>>>> multipart message to encode the responses from two specific ALTO > > >>>>>>> information resources: a filtered cost map or an Endpoint Cost > > >>>>>>> Service, and a property map. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 42) <!-- [rfced] Section 10.2: Does "which provides" refer to upgrading > > >>>>>>> to HTTP/2 and HTTP/3, or does it also refer to extending the SSE > > >>>>>>> mechanism (in which case "provides" should be "provide")? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original ("to allow servers proactively send" has been corrected): > > >>>>>>> Thus, it is worth looking into the direction of extending the SSE > > >>>>>>> mechanism as used in the incremental update extension [RFC8895], or > > >>>>>>> upgrading to HTTP/2 [RFC9113] and HTTP/3 [RFC9114], which provides > > >>>>>>> the ability to multiplex queries and to allow servers proactively > > >>>>>>> send related information resources. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > It refers to upgrading to HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 43) <!-- [rfced] Section 11: In the following sentence, should "CDNi" be "CDNI" instead? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Current: > > >>>>>>> Thus, they should only be used when exposing public > > >>>>>>> service access points (e.g., API gateways, CDNi) > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Perhaps: > > >>>>>>> Thus, they should only be used when exposing public > > >>>>>>> service access points (e.g., API gateways, CDN Interconnections) --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 44) <!-- [rfced] Section 12: FYI, we have updated the tables in the IANA Considerations section to better match the tables in the IANA registries. Please let us know of any concerns.--> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed changes. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 45) <!-- [rfced] Section 12.3: The information in this text and the > > >>>>>>> data in Table 3 seem to point to Section 12.3 ("ALTO Entity Domain > > >>>>>>> Types Registry") of draft-alto-unified-props-new (now RFC 9240) and > > >>>>>>> not to Section 12.2 ("alto-propmapparams+json Media Type") of that > > >>>>>>> document. We updated the section number accordingly. Please let us > > >>>>>>> know if this is incorrect. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> This document registers a new entry to the ALTO Domain Entity Type > > >>>>>>> Registry, as instructed by Section 12.2 of > > >>>>>>> [I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new]. The new entry is as shown below > > >>>>>>> in Table 3. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Currently: > > >>>>>>> This document registers a new entry in the "ALTO Entity Domain Types" > > >>>>>>> registry, per Section 12.3 of [RFC9240]. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 46) <!-- [rfced] Section 12.3: Is the sentence below talking about issue (2) in the Security Considerations section? Is a bis already in progress for this document or does another I-D that covers the topic exist? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Current: > > >>>>>>> Applications and ALTO > > >>>>>>> service providers using addresses of ANEs will be made aware of > > >>>>>>> how (or if) the addressing scheme relates to private information > > >>>>>>> and network proximity, in further iterations of this document. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Perhaps (reordering and saying "update" rather than "further iterations", and also changing "applications" to "implementers"): > > >>>>>>> A future update of this document will explain to ALTO implementers > > >>>>>>> and service providers using ANE addresses how (or if) the > > >>>>>>> addressing scheme relates to private information and network > > >>>>>>> proximity. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Yes, an example is Section 10.9 of RFC 9240, where the ANE name is following a schema of "[datacenter-id]-[cluster-id]". However, there is no bis or I-D in progress yet. We probably need to discuss this with AD and the chairs. We propose the following text: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > If a naming schema is used to generate ANE names, either > > >> > > > > used privately or standardized by a future extension, how > > >> > > > > (or if) the naming schema relates to private information > > >> > > > > and network proximity must be explained to ALTO implementers > > >> > > > > and service providers. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 47) <!-- [rfced] Section 12.4: The information in this text and the > > >>>>>>> data in Table 4 seem to point to Section 12.4 ("ALTO Entity Property > > >>>>>>> Types Registry") of draft-alto-unified-props-new (now RFC 9240) and > > >>>>>>> not to Section 12.3 ("ALTO Entity Domain Types Registry") of that > > >>>>>>> document. We updated the section number accordingly. Please let us > > >>>>>>> know if this is incorrect. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> Two initial entries "max-reservable-bandwidth" and "persistent- > > >>>>>>> entity-id" are registered to the ALTO Domain "ane" in the "ALTO > > >>>>>>> Entity Property Type Registry", as instructed by Section 12.3 of > > >>>>>>> [I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new]. The two new entries are shown > > >>>>>>> below in Table 4 and their details can be found in Section 12.4.1 and > > >>>>>>> Section 12.4.2. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Currently: > > >>>>>>> Two initial entries - "max-reservable-bandwidth" and "persistent- > > >>>>>>> entity-id" - are registered for the ALTO domain "ane" in the "ALTO > > >>>>>>> Entity Property Types" registry, per Section 12.4 of [RFC9240]. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 48) <!-- [rfced] Section 12.4.2: This sentence was difficult to follow, > > >>>>>>> as it appeared to say that the entity IDs might consider something. > > >>>>>>> We updated it per the "Security Considerations:" paragraph in > > >>>>>>> Section 12.3.2 of RFC 9240 (formerly > > >>>>>>> [I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new]). If this update is incorrect, > > >>>>>>> please provide clarifying text. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> The entity IDs > > >>>>>>> may consider sensitive information about the underlying network, > > >>>>>>> and an ALTO server should follow the security considerations in > > >>>>>>> Section 11 of [I-D.ietf-alto-unified-props-new]. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Currently: > > >>>>>>> As mentioned > > >>>>>>> in Section 12.3.2 of [RFC9240], the entity IDs may reveal > > >>>>>>> sensitive information about the underlying network. An ALTO > > >>>>>>> server should follow the security considerations provided in > > >>>>>>> Section 11 of [RFC9240]. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > We agree with the proposed change. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 49) <!-- [rfced] Informative References: The provided link for [NOVA], > > >>>>>>> which indicates the year 2017, redirects to a page listing the same > > >>>>>>> authors, but the listed title is different - "NOVA: Towards on-demand > > >>>>>>> equivalent network view abstraction for network optimization" - and > > >>>>>>> the listed year is 2019. Also listed via the provided link is "2017 > > >>>>>>> IEEE/ACM 25th International Symposium on Quality of Service (IWQoS), > > >>>>>>> pp. 1-10, June 2017". > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Note: We have added the DOI for now but will remove or change it > > >>>>>>> as appropriate. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Please review, and let us know which listing is correct. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original: > > >>>>>>> [NOVA] Gao, K., Xiang, Q., Wang, X., Yang, Y.R., and J. Bi, "An > > >>>>>>> objective-driven on-demand network abstraction for > > >>>>>>> adaptive applications", IEEE/ACM Transactions on > > >>>>>>> Networking (TON) Vol 27, no. 2 (2019): 805-818., 2019, > > >>>>>>> <https://doi.org/10.1109/IWQoS.2017.7969117>. --> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > The DOI for the reference should be: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2019.2899905 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > The TON version includes an encoding of the messages and should be used. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 50) <!-- [rfced] Informative References: The provided author list, > > >>>>>>> conference information, and date for [UNICORN] ("Unicorn: Unified > > >>>>>>> resource orchestration for multi-domain, geo-distributed data > > >>>>>>> analytics") did not match what we found on > > >>>>>>> <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/ > > >>>>>>> S0167739X18302413?via%3Dihub> or via DOI search on > > >>>>>>> 10.1016/j.future.2018.09.048. Because the document title was the > > >>>>>>> same, we updated the information according to the provided page. > > >>>>>>> Please let us know any objections; for example, should a different > > >>>>>>> paper or conference be listed here? If yes, please provide the > > >>>>>>> correct information. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Original (the bad spacing has been corrected): > > >>>>>>> [UNICORN] Xiang, Q., Chen, S., Gao, K., Newman, H., Taylor, I., > > >>>>>>> Zhang, J., and Y.R. Yang, "Unicorn: Unified Resource > > >>>>>>> Orchestration for Multi-Domain, Geo-Distributed Data > > >>>>>>> Analytics", 2017 IEEE SmartWorld, Ubiquitous Intelligence > > >>>>>>> Computing, Advanced Trusted Computed, Scalable Computing > > >>>>>>> Communications, Cloud Big Data Computing, Internet of > > >>>>>>> People and Smart City Innovation > > >>>>>>> (SmartWorld/SCALCOM/UIC/ATC/CBDCom/IOP/SCI) (Aug. 2017), > > >>>>>>> > > > > -- > -- > ===================================== > | Y. Richard Yang <yry@cs.yale.edu> | > | Professor of Computer Science | > | http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/ | > =====================================
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <draft-ietf-alto-… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <draft-ietf-a… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <draft-ietf-a… kaigao
- [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <draft-… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <dr… kaigao
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <dr… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <dr… kaigao
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <dr… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <dr… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <dr… kaigao
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <dr… Martin Duke
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <dr… Jensen Zhang
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <dr… Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <dr… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <dr… Young Lee
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <dr… Sandy Ginoza
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <dr… Y. Richard Yang
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <dr… Sandy Ginoza
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <dr… Y. Richard Yang