In short, I support adopting the two documents as WG working items. Below are some detailed comments, in case anyone cares to read more details.
- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kiesel-alto-ip-based-srv-disc-02 As already discussed, this document has potential to become a general-purpose mechanism (e.g., instead of http://192.0.0.X/alto, a general one might be http://192.0.0.X/<service>). After becoming a WG item, it may keep this general-purpose mechanism in mind. Here is one example of potential impact: the current version specifies HTTP redirect (Sec. 2.3, first para of Sec. 2.4). A general-purpose service may not use HTTP, and hence, it might need to include other mechanisms (e.g., redirect info contained in the returned page of the* WkAsdURI).* Some details need to be added, and some are already marked TBD. There are can be additional items. For example, it specifies that a change of IP address of an interface invalidates the result. This is in a sense a sufficient condition. There can be corner cases such as the IP address does not change but the MAC address of 192.0.0.X changes (change of redirection server). A soft state based approach based on refresh may help to detect such changes in a more uniform way. As another example, I still need to be convinced on some requirements such as the 3rd paragraph of Sec. 2.4 (IRD not reside on WkAsdIPa). Finishing the security section will be helpful too. Despite the preceding comments, the document is an excellent starting point on an important service, and I support adopting this document. - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kist-alto-3pdisc-04 This is also an important use case: 3rd party, and the WG should resolve this item completely. Richard On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Enrico Marocco < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear WG participants: > > we would like to check consensus on the adoption of the following drafts > that will complement the server discovery deliverable in the current > ALTO WG charter: > > + draft-kiesel-alto-ip-based-srv-disc > + draft-kist-alto-3pdisc > > The drafts were discussed on this list and presented in a few meetings. > In Orlando (IETF-86) the WG indicated consensus, but we agreed to > postpone the adoption in order to focus energies on the base protocol. > Now that the core specs are undergoing WGLC, it seems a good time to > resume the work. > > If you have any opinion on whether such document should or should not > become working group items, please state it by Wednesday, October 30. > > Enrico > > > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto > >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
