Sabine: The second WGLC for cost-calendar is now over. Jensen and Danny (thank you both) have provided comments.
Kindly attend to the comments during WGLC and release a new version so we can move this work ahead. Thank you for your attention to this. On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 11:47 AM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jensen, > > > > Thanks a lot for your review , I will fix this, > > Best regards, > > Sabine > > > > > > *From:* alto <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Jensen Zhang > *Sent:* Friday, February 22, 2019 6:28 PM > *To:* Vijay Gurbani <[email protected]> > *Cc:* IETF ALTO <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [alto] Second WGLC for cost-calendar > > > > Hi ALTOers, > > > > I checked the JSON examples in draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-10. And I saw > the following syntax errors still left in the latest document: > > > > In the IRD example in Sec 3.3, > > - "meta/cost-types/num-throughputrating/cost-metric" > and "meta/cost-types/string-servicestatus/cost-metric" have trailing commas. > > - missing a comma between > "resources/filtered-cost-map-calendar/calendar-attributes" and > "resources/filtered-cost-map-calendar/uses". > > > > In the FCM response example in Sec 4.1.3, > > - missing a pair of { } inside the list value of > "meta/calendar-response-attributes". > > > > In the ECS response example in Sec 4.2.3, > > - "meta/calendar-response-attributes" has a trailing comma. > > > > In the Multi-Cost ECS response example in Sec 4.2.4, > > - missing a comma between > "meta/calendar-response-attributes/cost-type-names" and > "meta/calendar-response-attributes/calendar-start-time". > > - "meta/calendar-response-attributes" has a trailing comma. > > > > After fixed the syntax issues above, I used cURL to check the > Content-Length for all JSON examples.. But I cannot get the same value as > the document gives. > > > > Following is my result. But the Content-Length value for the response JSON > should be wrong. Because I just left the symbols "v1, v2, ..." but not the > concrete values in the JSON. > > > > ./cost-cal-ecs-req.json > > > Content-Length: 290 > > ./cost-cal-ecs-res.json > > > Content-Length: 557 > > ./cost-cal-fcm-req.json > > > Content-Length: 208 > > ./cost-cal-fcm-res.json > > > Content-Length: 689 > > ./cost-cal-ird.json > > > Content-Length: 2542 > > ./cost-cal-mcecs-req.json > > > Content-Length: 373 > > ./cost-cal-mcecs-res.json > > > Content-Length: 967 > > > > My script and JSON files for the Content-Length checking can be found in > my Gist: https://gist.github.com/fno2010/9d4ac11ff268a83011f7d0bcf5bd44e2 > > > > Sabine, you told me you replaced the symbols "v1, v2, ..." by specific > values to evaluate the content-length. Not sure which values you > were using. But you can modify the JSON files and rerun my script to > evaluate the Content-Length. > > > > Best, > > Jensen > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 1:16 PM Vijay Gurbani <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Folks: The WGLC period is about to expire and so far no one has posted > anything to the list. It is imperative that we have some folks looking at > the drafts as we move them along. I do realize everyone is busy, please > kindly take a few minutes to look at the diffs and post anything that seems > remiss to the list. > > > > Thank you. > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:54 AM Vijay Gurbani <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Folks: During the IESG review of cost-calendar, substantial comments were > made that requires a second WGLC for this draft. Pursuant to the second > WGLC, we will resend the draft to the IESG. > > > > The IESG comments are captured in [1]. The authors of cost-calendar have > revised the draft to address these comments and the new draft (version -10) > is available at [2]. > > > > This email serves as a second WGLC for cost-calendar and will run from > Mon, Feb 11 2019 to Mon, Feb 25 2019. During this two week period, please > examine carefully the revised version and post any comments or discussions > to the list, even if you have no comments, a simple email to the list > saying that you have examined the changes and the draft is ready to proceed > is helpful. > > > > To help you save time, you can examine the diffs between -09 and -10 at > [3]. > > > > Thank you. > > > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar/ballot/ > [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar/ > [3] > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-10.txt > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto > >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
