Dear Qiao, thank you for the review. We will post a new version of the draft soon, which will reflect your comments. For details see below.
Thanks again, Sebastian On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 08:06:54PM +0800, Qiao Xiang wrote: > Dear Sebastian, Martin and WG members, > > I reviewed the draft-ietf-alto-xdom-disc document. Overall the document is > well written. It provides a smart solution to address Req. AR-33 in > RFC6708. The idea to use reverse DNS lookup for cross-domain server > discovery is elegant. I add some editorial comments for this document in > the following. Other than these, it is my opinion that this document should > be last called. > > > ===Comments=== > Section 3 > Page 12, I might be extra picky here, but the title of this section is > formatted as: > "Using the ALTO Protocol with ALTO Cross-Domain Server Discovery", > while it should be formatted as: > "Using the ALTO Protocol with ALTO Cross-Domain Server Discovery". > with an extra space after "with" deleted. Trailing space before a line break in the XML source... Thanks for being picky - we want to produce high-quality documents, both wrt. content and formatting. > Section 3.1 > Page 13, line 1: "in the subsection below." Based on the context, this > subsection refers to Section 3.4. It should be stated explicitly. We have changed it. > Section 3.4 > Page 14, case 4: > "...the ALTO client should split the list of source addresses, and perform > separately for each source address the same steps as in case 1, as > specified above. As an alternative, the ALTO client could also split the > list of destination addresses,..." > > the expression should be consistent with case 3. I suggest it is changed to: > > "...the ALTO client may split the list of source addresses, and perform > separately for each source address the same steps as in case 1, as > specified above. As an alternative, the ALTO client may also split the > list of destination addresses,..." we have changed "should" + "could" to "should" + "may". We think it is better to indicate a preference for one of these options, therefore the "should". Note that we are using lowercase should and may, not the RFC2119 ones, as this is not an issue of interoperability. > Appendix A > Page 24, para 1: "A solution for the problem described in the previous > section". Which section is referred to should be explicitly stated. This is a remains from moving that section from the main part to the appendix. We have reworded it: This appendix itemizes requirements that have been collected before the design phase and that are reflected by the design of the ALTO Cross-Domain Server Discovery Procedure. > Appendix B > Page 29, all the "m"s in the equation computing P(X=k) should be "M" You are right. We have fixed that. Thanks again, Sebastian _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
