Hi Dany, Thanks a lot , please see answers inline, Best regards, Sabine
From: alto <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Danny Alex Lachos Perez Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 4:04 AM To: [email protected] Cc: IETF ALTO <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [alto] Status update //RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-05.txt Hello, Qin and all the authors. I have performed a review of this draft (-05). My comments are in the attached file (marked with [DANNY]). Most of them are about format issues, consistency, and clarity. [[SR]] Thanks a lot. They will greatly help clarifying the document. However, I have a technical comment: Regarding hop count cost metric (section 6), the metric name is very generic. Considering the "metric description", you basically refer to router hops. What about other types of hop count, for example, AS-hops?. Based on your description, I think that this metric could have a more specific name ("router hop count", for giving an example) [[SR]] Indeed there was quite some discussion on that metric and the issue was as you mentioned it. How the “hopcount” metric is constructed is not specified in RFC 7285, that uses it in its examples. So it may cover any types of hops (IP, AS, etc.). One way to specify the “type” of hops would be: in the ”meta” of the IRD, in its “cost-type” member, add for cost-type names related to metric “hopcount” a field “description” taking values such as: “AS hops”, “router hops”, “IP hops”, “Abstracted hops” or other types. Or can be “hop type XX”. Any thoughts and suggestions in the WG? PLUS: Each cost metric (OWDelay, RTT, PDV, Hop Count, Packet Loss, and Throughput) is considered a section. However, I think you can consider them as subsections of a section, similar to how you did with Traffic Engineering Performance Cost Metrics (section 9). [[SR]] How about we put a section 3. “End to end path performance metrics” with one subsection for each of the metrics specified in current sections 3 through 8? Best regards, Danny Lachos On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:15 PM Qin Wu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, The main changes in v-(05) are to remove duplicated text for PDV cost metric and add throughput cost metric to align with cost calendar draft. The diff is: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-05 -Qin -----邮件原件----- 发件人: alto [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] 代表 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 发送时间: 2018年10月22日 9:12 收件人: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 抄送: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: [alto] I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-05.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization WG of the IETF. Title : ALTO Performance Cost Metrics Authors : Qin Wu Y. Richard Yang Young Lee Dhruv Dhody Sabine Randriamasy Filename : draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-05.txt Pages : 26 Date : 2018-10-21 Abstract: Cost Metric is a basic concept in Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO). It is used in both the Cost Map Service and the Endpoint Cost Service. Different applications may benefit from different Cost Metrics.. For example, a Resource Consumer may prefer Resource Providers that offer a low delay delivery to the Resource Consumer. However the base ALTO protocol [ALTO] has documented only one single cost metric, i.e., the generic "routingcost" metric (Sec. 14.2 of ALTO base specification [ALTO]). This document, proposes a set of Cost Metrics, derived and aggregated from routing protocols with different granularity and scope, such as BGP-LS,OSPF-TE and ISIS-TE, or from end-to-end traffic management tools. It currently documents Network Performance Cost Metrics reporting on network delay, jitter, packet loss, hop count, and bandwidth. These metrics may be exposed by an ALTO Server to allow applications to determine "where" to connect based on network performance criteria. Additional Cost Metrics involving ISP specific considerations or other network technologies may be documented in further versions of this draft. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-05 https://datatracker.ietf..org/doc/html/draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-05<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-05> A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-05 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
