[Iot-directorate] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-17

[Wesley Eddy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Wesley Eddy
Review result: Ready with Issues

I only found 1 real "issue" in reading this document, and a few smaller nits,
described below.  None of these comments are specifically related to IoTDIR
type of concerns, and it doesn't seem like the protocol would be intended for
use in IoT.

Issues:

1) The placement of TIPS relative to other ALTO standards is unclear.  This
became evident to me on page 4, reading the bottom paragraph with "Despite the
benefits, however, ...".  Is the gist of this paragraph supposed to be that the
WG does not think that TIPS should totally replace ALTO/SSE?  It's not clear to
me what the recommendation or applicability statement for these is in practical
terms.  The WG should convey more clearly what it believes implemenentations
and deployments should be using, under what circumstances.  If both protocols
are maintained as standards track, then it should be clearly stated why that
needs to be the case and that this does not obsolete ALTO/SSE.  It seems to be
created as another option, with unclear guidance provided to implementers about
what to do.

Nits:

1) page 4
from
"no capability it transmits incremental"
to
"no capability to transmit incremental"

2) I don't know if this is typical for other ALTO documents, but the usage of
the term "transport protocol" in the first paragraph of section 1 is not
consistent with the Internet architecture where "transport protocols" are TCP,
UDP, SCTP, etc., nor is it "transport" in the sense of MPLS, etc.   I would
suggest using the alternative term "transfer" to be less jarring.  Of course,
if this is already the standard terminology for ALTO that the IETF has
accepted, then this comment can be ignored.

3) In the section 5.4 example, should "my-networkmap" in some of the "uses"
values by "my-network-map" that was defined at the top?