Dear ALTO working group,
Below is a review of draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-02. Most of
them are minor edits and I think section 2 could be better organized.
Your feedback and comments are highly appreciated.
Thanks!
Regards,
Kai
============================================================
p3, table 1, last row:
missing a "]"
p3, introduction, last paragraph
"explicitly specified" -> "standard" or "ISP independent"
p4, 2nd para
"If some are subject to ... them to the client"
Could be
"For example, those that are subject to privacy concerns should not be
provided
to unauthorized ALTO clients."
p4, figure 1
"retrieve and aggregation" -> "retrieval and aggregation"
p4, 3rd para
SHOULD -> MUST since if a metric is not announced to clients in IRD,
it's strange to say it's "supported".
p4, 4th para
further versions -> maybe "future extensions" is better? Can we add new
types if this document becomes standard?
as for example, ... metrics. -> such as many metrics related to
end-to-end path bandwidth.
ALTO may convey ... capacity related measurements. -> I don't quite
understand this part. Is it saying ALTO should provide some unified
aggregation mechanism since these metrics cannot be provided by a single
party?
p4, 5th para
will rapidly give up... -> SHOULD/CAN rapidly give up
sec2
I wonder if we could use "Data sources and computation of ALTO
performance cost metrics". Many metric specifications point back to this
section so I think it should also give guidelines or suggestions while
talking about challenges.
The specifications are generally good but is it possible to split the
examples a bit? There are many large blank blocks.
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
