Re: [CDNi] [alto] [E] WGLC for draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-09

Dear Sanjay,

Thank you so much for the careful review! We will follow the suggestions
and take a pass. In particular, we will enumerate a few examples of error
handling as suggested. We will post a new version by Tuesday.

Richard

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 6:12 PM <sanjay.mishra=40verizon.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
wrote:

> I have review draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-09 and don’t have
> any issues except some minor suggestions and nits.
>
>
>
> *Sec 1 Introduction:*
>
> 1.       If by using “functionalities” below is meant to reference the
> two RFC (RFC 7975 & RFC 8008), semantically, it may be better to state that
> the request routing interface is covered in two separate RFCs and reference
> the two RFC by name and number.
>
> a.       Correspondingly, the request routing interface is broadly
> divided into two functionalities: (1) CDNI Footprint & Capabilities
> Advertisement interface (FCI), and (2) CDNI Request Routing Redirection
> interface (RI).
>
>
>
> 2.       (replace is -> are)
>
> a.       A protocol to transport and update such objects between a uCDN
> and a dCDN, however, is not defined
>
> 3.       (delete “some”)
>
> b.      In this way, a uCDN can effectively fetch capabilities of some
> footprints in which it is interested
>
> 4.       (add “as defined” instead of “defined” in two places in the
> sentence starting as below)
>
> c.       Throughout this document, we use the terminologies for CDNI
> defined…
>
>
>
> *Section 2.1:*
>
> 5.       (replace “For a detailed discussions” with “For detailed
> information…” )
>
> d.      For a detailed discussion, the reader is referred to the RFCs.
>
> 6.       Remove extra sub bullet at the end of section 2.1 since there is
> no text (check the document for other instances of bullet but no text).
>
>
>
> *Section 2.2:*
>
> 7.       Remove reference to I-D.jenkins-alto-cdn-use-cases
>
> 8.       Replace (“Identifications -> Identification): Security:
> Identifications between uCDNs and dCDNs are extremely important
>
> 9.       Can an example be added of what unexpected cases authors
> envision?
>
> a.       Error-handling: The ALTO protocol has undergone extensive
> revisions in order to provide sophisticated error-handling, in particular
> regarding unexpected cases
>
> *Section 6:*
>
> 10.   Re-word (“First, we describe how to represent”)
>
> a.       We firstly describe how to represent
>
> 11.   Replace (“And then” with “Second”)
>
>
>
> *Section 8:*
>
> 12.   Add a colon  after follows
>
> a.       included as follows.
>
> 13.   Needs some rewording for the sentence below:
>
> a.       For availability of ALTO services, an attacker may get the
> potential huge full CDNI
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Sanjay
>
>
>
> *From:* CDNi [mailto:cdni-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Vijay Gurbani
> *Sent:* Monday, February 3, 2020 10:08 AM
> *To:* IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>; cdni@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [E] [CDNi] WGLC for
> draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-09
>
>
>
> All: Jan and I will like to start WGLC for
> draft-ietf-cdni-request-routing-alto-09.  The WGLC period will run from
> Mon,
> Feb 3 2020 to Wed, Feb 19 2020.
>
> This email is also being cross-posted to the CDNI working group.
>
> We will like to have one WG list member from ALTO and one WG list member
> from
>
> CDNI review this draft in depth.  Please send Jan and me an email if you
> are willing
>
> review the draft as part of WGLC.
>
>
>
> In addition, we will like general reviews of the draft from both ALTO and
> CDNI WGs.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>
-- 
Richard