Re: [CDNi] draft-ryan-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions

Kevin Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 07 November 2021 05:53 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMrHYE2Nbqmh2nVQ5Cohz2+qkUcm-9YxMioARf3mZPktN0UdNA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrHYE2Nbqmh2nVQ5Cohz2+qkUcm-9YxMioARf3mZPktN0UdNA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kevin Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2021 01:53:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMrHYE1eYkx_nGC_m6MJxCuDFDoFpPX+AQVL8wNc-16pyJr=ug@mail.gmail.com>
To: "<cdni@ietf.org>" <cdni@ietf.org>, andrew@andrewnryan.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006c5b1c05d02c7fe7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/n63OwWCO19d3uEgsGQTfVUgSpRg>
Subject: Re: [CDNi] draft-ryan-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions
Precedence: list

resending with the correct address for Andrew...

On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 1:50 AM Kevin Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
>   Thanks for updating the draft.  There's a lot of good content in the new
> version.  Some comments, questions, and nits below:
>
>   - section 2.1.2: should "FCI.Telemetry" be "FCI.TelemetrySource"?
>      Is it correct that this just describes attributes of the metrics
> emitted by the given source and that it is not actually streaming any
> metrics?  i.e., if I attached to the "capacity_metrics_region1" metrics
> source, I could then expect to see streams of different types of metrics,
> e.g., a 5m median bandwidth usage that is 25 minutes old?
>     And is it then completely up to the CDNs to negotiate out-of-band how
> to connect to a given source (push vs pull, endpoint addr/url, etc) and in
> what format to expect the data (open telemetry, etc)?  Should that be in
> the source object?
>
>   - section 2.2: Do "total-limits" and "host-limits" need to be separate
> arrays?  Is the only distinction that the former is not allowed to have
> capacity limit objects with "host" names and the latter is?  Could it be a
> single "limits" array, or is there some parsing efficiency to keeping them
> separate?
>
>   - section 2.3: I would remove RequestedCapacityLimits from the other
> draft and just specify it here, if the context makes more sense.
>
>   - section 3: Is the intent to also create new registries for the
> telemetry source and capacity limit types?
>
>   - sections 4/5: The security section probably needs to discuss issues
> related to misuse or falsification of metrics information.  A privacy
> section should also be added and probably needs to discuss concerns related
> to exposing the proposed types of metrics information.
>
>   thanx!
>
> --  Kevin J. Ma
>
> nits:
>   - section 1: payload types are actually defined in section 2.2 of RFC
> 7736 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7736#section-2.2)
>   - section 2.1: "it's dCDN" -> "its dCDN" (multiple)
>   - section 2.1: "a non ambiguous" -> "an unambiguous"
>   - section 2.1.1.1: "format,etc" -> "format, etc"
>   - section 2.1.1.2: "describe the metric" -> "describes the metric"
>   - section 2.2.1: "deducing" -> "reducing"
>   - section 2.3: "per host" -> "per-host"
>   - section 3.1: "simialr" -> "similar"
>   - section 3.1: will need to tighten up the language here
>   - section 3.1.1; should link to section 2.1.2
>   - section 3.1.2; should link to section 2.2.2
>   - section 3.1.3; should link to section 2.3.2
>
>
>
>

[CDNi] draft-ryan-cdni-capacity-insights-extensio… Kevin Ma
Re: [CDNi] draft-ryan-cdni-capacity-insights-exte… Kevin Ma
Re: [CDNi] draft-ryan-cdni-capacity-insights-exte… Andrew Ryan