Re: [CDNi] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-16: (with COMMENT)

[Kevin Ma J <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

  The latest -18 should address your other comments.
  1. I made the summary its own section and added an intro clause to ease the transition.
  2. I removed "hop-by-hop" and clarified that we mean "between CDNs".
  3. I made the CDNI Framework reference normative and the HTTP/TLS references informative.

thanx!

--  Kevin J. Ma

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Ma J
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:42 PM
> To: 'Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)'
> Cc: The IESG; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-
> capabilities-semantics-16: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Mirja,
> 
>   Thanks for the (re)review!
> 
>   The changes were announced on the list; we will make sure folks have a
> chance to comment.
> 
>   1. We will try and clean up the transition in 2.5.
>   2. I think we were thinking of hop-by-hop as CDN-to-CDN, in a cascaded
> CDN scenario, not router-to-router.  We can update the text to clarify.
>   3. We will go back and recheck the references.
> 
> thanx!
> 
> --  Kevin J. Ma
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 8:12 AM
> > To: Kevin Ma J
> > Cc: The IESG; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-
> footprint-
> > capabilities-semantics-16: (with COMMENT)
> >
> > Hi Kevin,
> >
> > thanks a lot for performing these changes. The document is much clearer
> > now. Did you confirm these changes on the wg mailing list to make the wg
> > aware of it?
> >
> > There are a few minor nits the RCF editor will for sure care about. I
> only
> > have three remaining comments/questions:
> >
> > 1) section 2.5. reads still a little weird because it rather seems to be
> a
> > summary or conclusion of the previous sections than a new subsection on
> > the same level than the previous ones. However, I don’t have a real
> > suggestion how to fix that. Maybe just add one more introductory
> sentence.
> > But t’s also okay to leave it as it is.
> >
> > 2) In section 6 I found the term "hop-by-hop transport-layer security
> > mechanisms“. Shouldn’t this be „end-to-end …“?
> >
> > 3) Please also check the references again. I’ve added this comment later
> > to my ballot position, so you’ve probably have not seen it. I still
> > believe that probably the second half of the normative references should
> > be informative and 1-2 of the CDNi informative ones should be normative.
> > Please check again!
> >
> > Mirja
> >
> >
> > > Am 23.04.2016 um 19:13 schrieb Kevin Ma J <[e-mail]>:
> > >
> > > Hi Mirja,
> > >
> > >  We have restructured the document, removing the focus on the main use
> > case and moving the main use case and other historical stuff to
> appendices
> > and trying to make clear just what the decisions were and what the
> > requirements are.  This should address the redundancy issue.  We have
> also
> > added a terminology section to better clarify what we mean by footprint
> > and capability.  Finally, we changed the document from Informational to
> > Standards Track and moved over the two missing object definitions from
> > draft-ma-cdni-capabilities.
> > >
> > >  I think the document is much more readable and functional now.  Thank
> > you for your input.
> > >
> > > thanx!
> > >
> > > --  Kevin J. Ma
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Kevin Ma J
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 6:21 PM
> > >> To: 'Mirja Kuehlewind'; The IESG
> > >> Cc: [e-mail]; cdni-
> > >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > >> Subject: RE: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-
> > footprint-
> > >> capabilities-semantics-16: (with COMMENT)
> > >>
> > >> Hi Mirja,
> > >>
> > >>  Thank you for the review.  Some responses to your comments:
> > >>
> > >>  1. You are correct, the base object definition was added later.  The
> > WG
> > >> had agreed that this draft would create a registry for capabilities
> > (which
> > >> we later aligned with the forthcoming Metadata interface draft to use
> > the
> > >> Payload Type registry) and register the mandatory capabilities listed
> > in
> > >> the document.  The discussion with the AD was that just creating a
> > >> registry was not a reason to make it Standards Track.  The Payload
> Type
> > >> registry, though, requires an object definition and serialization
> > example,
> > >> so the objects were added to this document.
> > >>
> > >>     I guess I see three options:
> > >>
> > >>     a) Leave the document as Informational,
> > >>     b) Change the document to Standards Track, or
> > >>     c) Move the object definitions and Payload Type registrations to
> > >> another draft.
> > >>
> > >>     I'm open to suggestions as to what the best approach here would
> be?
> > >>
> > >>  2. Footprint is the term used in the Problem Statement (RFC6707),
> Use
> > >> Case (RFC6770) and corresponding Metadata (draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-
> 13)
> > >> documents, so I'd prefer to keep the term, but I can add a
> Terminology
> > >> section in the next version.
> > >>
> > >>  3. Understood.  A lot of the sections are there for historical
> > context,
> > >> but I'll give it another read through and try to remove some
> redundancy
> > in
> > >> the next version.
> > >>
> > >>  4. a) The WG spent a lot of time debating what is the correct amount
> > of
> > >> data to send, which was the reason we wrote this document.  I don't
> > think
> > >> we want to limit the sending of more data; our goal was to limit the
> > >> problem scope WG.  I'm not sure we need to add another requirement
> for
> > >> network load; I'm also not sure how we would quantify it.
> > >>     b) I agree that there is probably more emphasis than necessary on
> > the
> > >> Main Use Case.  As a historical note, that was there to help move us
> > >> forward toward a decision.  I can try to wordsmith that in the next
> > >> version.
> > >>
> > >> thanx!
> > >>
> > >> --  Kevin J. Ma
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: Mirja Kuehlewind [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 11:29 AM
> > >>> To: The IESG
> > >>> Cc: [e-mail];
> > Francois
> > >> Le
> > >>> Faucheur; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > >>> Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-
> footprint-
> > >>> capabilities-semantics-16: (with COMMENT)
> > >>>
> > >>> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> > >>> draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-16: No Objection
> > >>>
> > >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
> all
> > >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
> > this
> > >>> introductory paragraph, however.)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-
> > >> criteria.html
> > >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-
> > capabilities-
> > >>> semantics/
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > >>> COMMENT:
> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > >>>
> > >>> I did enter enter 'No Objection' because non of my comments should
> > hold
> > >>> up publication, however, I really would like to see another revision
> > of
> > >>> this doc to make it easier to read and understand.
> > >>>
> > >>> 1) Intended status
> > >>> This documents contains two things
> > >>>   a) Requirements (or here called Design Decision) for a FCI
> protocol
> > >>>   b) Definition of the mandatory base object as well as  needed
> > >>> registries
> > >>> While a) would clearly be an informational document, I would see b)
> > >>> rather as being a Standards track document.
> > >>> Further, the document reads as if b) was added late in the process.
> > >>> So my question is: was the intended status discussed in the working
> > >> group
> > >>> and why was it decided to go for information?
> > >>>
> > >>> 2) footprint vs. capabilities
> > >>> I'm sure (I hope) these terms are well understood in the wg,
> however,
> > >> for
> > >>> me it is still not clear why a footprint is not just a capability
> but
> > >>> something special. I understood that other capabilities can be
> bounded
> > >> to
> > >>> a footprint, however, can this not also be true for other
> > capabilities?
> > >>> E.g. a certain protocol is only supported for a certain content
> > type...
> > >>> or something like this?
> > >>> Further, I still don't understand why you need a new term called
> > >>> footprint. In 2.2 you only talk about coverage which would be the
> > better
> > >>> (more easy to understand) term for me. Also if you don't support
> > >>> something because of resource restrictions, this would still simple
> > mean
> > >>> that you don't cover something.
> > >>> If those terms are well understand and use in the wg, I do
> understand
> > if
> > >>> you don't want to apply any changes anymore here. However, for the
> > >>> readability it might be helpful to at least add a terminology
> section
> > at
> > >>> the very beginning of the doc.
> > >>>
> > >>> 3) Reduce Redundancy
> > >>> I think it would help the readability if the requirements and the
> > >>> specification bits would be more clearly separated. I guess all
> > >>> requirements are listed and explained well in section 2. Therefore
> all
> > >>> reasoning given in the later section can simply be removed (and if
> > >> needed
> > >>> replaced by a reference to the respective subsection in 2). Further,
> > >> it's
> > >>> a little confusion that the requirements are phrased as if they
> should
> > >> be
> > >>> addressesd in a future doc, while some of the requirements are
> already
> > >>> addressed in this doc by the given definitions.
> > >>>
> > >>> 4) Requirements
> > >>>   a) It is mentioned a few times that the additional network load by
> > >>> sending these information must be limited to a reasonable amount,
> > >>> however, there is no explicit requirement in section 2 that is
> saying
> > >>> this. Would it make sense to add one more requirement here?
> > >>>   b) Not sure if Focusing on Main Use Cases can/should actually be a
> > >>> requirement. The question might be rather but are the restrictions
> you
> > >>> will have by only focusing on the main use case/what cannot/does not
> > >> have
> > >>> to be supported (overlapping coverage?)... however, that might only
> be
> > a
> > >>> wording thing.
> > >>>
> > >