Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9275 <draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-25> for your review
"Y. Richard Yang" <yry@cs.yale.edu> Wed, 21 September 2022 21:32 UTC
Return-Path: <yang.r.yang@gmail.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 E399FC1524AF; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.406
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=no 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 m5vGGmIaebSr; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa1-f42.google.com (mail-oa1-f42.google.com [209.85.160.42]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 EEFA2C1522D2; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa1-f42.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-12803ac8113so11056839fac.8; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=WjjYl+01aNpvn63s9IaVHW30sgOeiKOKQjd2YBVIvRA=; b=K/COOwYkCeSJklc7Qx/Tj68u6rTAHwF3X4raXEkQv6b8R+Juq1A9Pu9x2RQWcrM/V2 IqVmIBdXN+I0Teg+AF4VJcqg70m+Swy/Kv22Aiu8gbsGbcRyrrqdB59HUZ4pBbWMFlvq 8yhe4zGI9A6OpZbpVUUYi+9kNTovc1/MyRJ+q075rOu5SjMfIUCJocvR+tZMzvoOiNgU c/txZttydRdeOF9tZRDAdB0xxBw7fO+HSjVhQuErz27xOOaLrqLDR3ZweBiVDdGg5yid X+FPtWQ/fTQoQkTWYApvytilF9kc0wSkqNJdXpmrT6aSXqdRRw9aco9YMGBe7Essc6YH IVRw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0W1YaPgy9zm4tP3NaKvxTzkQefDPhe6xgxIYJtn2rHMv6hLU+/ 86+9PyL04NHVv76b5bR53ObcKLhbQP6BA0HcFjY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5rCXkPo9SvgYMlbPI8OSU+ojZAHBLz4lTiCvXJBGHpJ0qd4CBzDj9y8VzL8MpBkVLUFmTjRFeI/kGAL2PLuzQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:4284:b0:101:202e:a78d with SMTP id y4-20020a056870428400b00101202ea78dmr6235659oah.37.1663795960700; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <8E43B1BA-2468-44E8-ABE8-A379E9FCEB2F@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <8E43B1BA-2468-44E8-ABE8-A379E9FCEB2F@amsl.com>
From: "Y. Richard Yang" <yry@cs.yale.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 17:32:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CANUuoLp5+B_SYd=w4im2TL7NYS8R-dmfRT-PdcB3v8tzgf6iDA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandy Ginoza <sginoza@amsl.com>
Cc: Jensen Zhang <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com>, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR)" <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com>, Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>, Young Lee <younglee.tx@gmail.com>, alto-ads@ietf.org, alto-chairs@ietf.org, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, kaigao@scu.edu.cn
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000037647005e936af15"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/Ec0idyEXUX0zdkQXHEh_aBsY-Xw>
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 21:32:46 -0000
Wonderful! Thank you so much! Richard On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 5:03 PM Sandy Ginoza <sginoza@amsl.com> wrote: > 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 talk -- Richard
- [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