Sabine: Thank you for submitting the revision. I will go over it and get back to you with any editorial changes, and pursuant to that we will move it out of the WG. Cheers, - vijay
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 2:08 PM Vijay Gurbani <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
