The downward ref issue has been clarified (thanks to Sabine for quick
and proper checking), so I removed the sentence "RFC2119 is listed as a
normative reference but not listed in the DOWNREF Registry" from the
write-up. The document is now in state "Submitted to IESG for Publication".
- Jan
On 22/02/2017 18:27, Jan Seedorf wrote:
Dear all,
I just uploaded the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost
to the datatracker (fyi below).
Authors: you still need to fix one downward ref (see below). Let me
know when you intend to do this. Once this is done, I will set the
status to "submit to IESG".
- Jan
*1. Summary*
Jan Seedorf is the document shepherd for draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost.
Mirja Kühlewind is the responsible Area Director.
The document itself has a long history, having started as a -00
document in the ALTO WG as an individual draft in October 2010
(author: Sabine Randriamasy).It transitioned to a WG document in May
2015 (after the ALTO WG had been re-chartered to work on extensions to
the original ALTO protocol as specified in RFC 7285) (authors: Sabine
Randriamasy, Wendy Roome, Nico Schwan).
The ALTO protocol as specified in RFC 7285 allows to only query
results for one single ALTO cost metric in a given ALTO request.
draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost defines a “new service that allows a client
to retrieve several cost metrics with one request, which is
considerably moreefficient” [draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost-04]. This is
clearly a very useful extension of the ALTO protocol and covered in
the current ALTO charter.
The working group is targeting this document as Standards Track, which
is appropriate as the document extends the ALTO protocol, specifying
new formats for allowed client requests (in JSON).
*2. Review and Consensus*
The document has been presented at multiple IETF meetings and
discussed on the mailing list. It is well-known in the ALTO WG and
there is clear consensus to standardise the proposed ALTO extension. A
WGLC was issued on July 4, 2016.During this WGLC a detailed review has
been produced by Xin Wang, extensive additional comments were provided
by Richard Yang and Hans Seidel. The comments raised have been
addressed in the -03 version of draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost. Last
outstanding comments have been finally addressed in the latest -04
(September 2016) and -05 versions (February 2017).
In summary, there is clear support and consensus for
draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost in the ALTO WG, and it provides a very
useful extension to the base ALTO protocol. A WGLC has successfully
been passed, and extensive reviews were provided by various members of
the WG and have all been addressed.
*3. Intellectual Property*
The shepherd confirms that each author has stated to him that to the
best of his/her (i.e. the author’s) knowledge, all IPR related to this
document has been disclosed.
There have been two IPR disclosures on this document (see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2615/ and
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1628/). Both these IPR disclosures
have been posted on the ALTO mailing list. There was no discussion on
these IPR statements.
*4. Other Points*
RFC2119 is listed as a normative reference but not listed in the
DOWNREF Registry
(http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry)
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry%29>.
The authors have been notified and will fix this issue.
This document does not introduce any IANA considerations and does not
introduce any privacy or security issues that are not already present
in the ALTO protocol
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
