Re: [secdir] [OPS-DIR] FW: [alto] I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-18.txt

["Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Jürgen,

Thanks a lot,
Best regards,
Sabine


-----Original Message-----
From: Schönwälder, Jürgen <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 2:18 PM
To: Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Y. Richard Yang <[e-mail]>; IETF ALTO <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [OPS-DIR] FW: [alto] I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-18.txt

Dear Sabine,

this version looks good to me.

/js

On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 12:06:36PM +0000, Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) wrote:
> Dear Jürgen, Barry and all,
> 
> A new version has been submitted that hopefully addresses Jürgen and Barry’s IESG review comments.
> Thanks again for your helpful suggestions.
> 
> 
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-19
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-19
> 
> 
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-19
> 
> Best regards,
> Sabine and co-authors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Y. Richard Yang <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 29, 2020 1:37 PM
> To: Schönwälder, Jürgen <[e-mail]>
> Cc: IETF ALTO <[e-mail]>; Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - 
> FR/Paris-Saclay) <[e-mail]>; The IESG 
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [OPS-DIR] FW: [alto] I-D Action: 
> draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-18.txt
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 3:21 AM Schönwälder, Jürgen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 04:26:01PM -0500, Y. Richard Yang wrote:
> > Dear Jürgen,
> >
> > Always excellent comments. Please see below.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 1:18 PM Schönwälder, Jürgen < 
> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 03:00:31PM +0000, Randriamasy, Sabine 
> > > (Nokia -
> > > FR/Paris-Saclay) wrote:
> > > > Dear IESG reviewers, Jürgen, Brian, Barry,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you very much for your review and suggestions. Upon your 
> > > > feedback,
> > > we have posted a new version 18, that hopefully addresses your comments.
> > > > Besides, some lower/upper case typo harmonization has been done 
> > > > on
> > > expressions such as "Client", "Server", "cost type".
> > > > We look forward to having your feedback,
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the changes. All looks good but I am still struggling a 
> > > bit with the type change of the cost field. Revision -18 has this 
> > > new
> > > text:
> > >
> > >    [...] Therefore the implementor of this extension MUST consider
> > >    that a cost entry is an array of values.
> > >
> > > I do not really understand what this MUST tries to achieve or what 
> > > you expect an implementer to do exactly.
> > >
> > > RFC 7285 section 11.2.3.6 says:
> > >
> > >    [...] An implementation of the protocol in this document
> > >    SHOULD assume that the cost is a JSONNumber and fail to parse if it
> > >    is not, unless the implementation is using an extension to this
> > >    document that indicates when and how costs of other data types are
> > >    signaled.
> > >
> > > It may help to spell out 'when and how costs of other data types 
> > > are signaled' instead of writing "the implementor [...] MUST 
> > > consider". If the idea is that the usage of an array is signaled 
> > > by the usage of an array, then say so, if there is some other way 
> > > to signal this before I try to parse, then say so as well. We 
> > > should not rely on implementers to consider and find their own solutions.
> > >
> > > /js
> > >
> > > PS: I do not know much about ALTO but out of curiosity: has it been
> > >     considered to allocate new "cost-mode" values "numerical*" and
> > >     "ordinal*" that signal that the cost field is a vector of
> > >     numerical/ordinal values and not just a scalar?
> > >
> > >
> > It indeed can help a lot if we could introduce a new cost mode, but 
> > the change would be more substantial.
> >
> > Looking at your proposal on spelling out "when and how costs of 
> > other data types are signaled," which is an excellent suggestion. 
> > How does the following look:
> >
> > "... Therefore the implementor of this extension MUST consider that 
> > a cost entry is an array of values. Specifically, an implementation 
> > of this extension MUST parse the "number-of-intervals" attribute of 
> > the "calendar-attributes" in an IRD entry announcing a service 
> > providing Cost Calendar. The implementation then will know that a 
> > cost entry of the service will be an array of values, and the 
> > expected size of the array is that specified by the 
> > "number-of-intervals" attribute.
> >
> 
> So the signal is the "number-of-intervals" attribute, this works for 
> me. I think it helps to spell this out.
> 
> Yes. Exactly. Thanks a lot for the help!
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> /js
> 
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> --
> Richard

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>