Hi Kevin and Sanjay, Thank you so much for the reviews. Please see my comments inline.
On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 2:42 PM Kevin Ma <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jan, > > Sorry for the delayed response. My comments as a co-author and CDNI > reviewer are below. Sanjay Mishra has also volunteered to provide an > independent CDNI review. > > thanx! > > -- Kevin J. Ma > > - section 3.7.1: > "one CDNI FCI resource depending on a network map, one filtered CDNI FCI > resource to be defined in Section 5," -> "one filtered CDNI FCI resource to > be defined in Section 5, one CDNI FCI resource depending on a network map," > or change the order in the json example > Thanks for catching it! Fixed. > > why do the filtered-cdnifci-property-map countrycode and asn > capabilities not have my-default-network-map.pid properties? > It is not reasonable to define my-default-network-map.pid properties of countrycode or asn entities. In the base ALTO protocol (RFC7285), a PID is defined as an aggregation of endpoint addresses. So in this example, this ALTO server does not allow any client to request such mappings from the filtered-cdnifci-property-map resource. > > in update-my-cdni-fci, for the my-filtered-cdnifci capability, > ""application/merge-patch+jso" should be ""application/merge-patch+json" > Fixed. Thanks! > > - section 3.7.3: > is this intended to be a continuation of the example in 3.7.2? if so, > should "http/2" be in the 3.7.2 example, if it's being removed in 3.7.3? > specifically, should "http/2" be "https/1.1" in 3.7.3? > Good point! The examples should be revised. > > in the footprint example, should the "value": "ipv4:192.0.2.0/24 > <http://192..0.2.0/24>" be a footprint object, i.e., "{ "footprint-type": > "ipv4", "footprint-value": ["192.0.2.0/24"] } ? (same comment applies to > the example in 5.7.3) > Yes, it should. Fixed. > > when adding a new ipv4 footprint, does this assume that there was not > previously an ipv4 footprint defined? if there was a previously defined > ipv4 footprint, the update should change the footprint-value array in the > ipv4 footprint structure? > Yes, it will change the footprint-value array. Assuming the "ipv4" footprint-type is the first footprint object, we should use the following JSON patch to do the update { "op": "add", "path": "/cdni-fci/capabilities/0/footprints/0/footprint-value/-", "value": "192.0.2.0/24" } The authors will fix it. > > - section 6.2.4: > the update of "ipv4:192.0.2.0/24" delivery protocol from "http/1.1" to > "http/1.1" doesn't actually change anything? > Good catch. The values in Sec 6.2.3 and Sec 6.2.4 should be different. Fixed. > > - section 7.1: > should probably add some text asking IANA to add the entry to the "CDNI > Metadata Footprint Types" registry, and add a link to its definition in > section 4.1. > I agree. WIll do it. > > - authors: > probably should change my email to: [email protected] and > remove my Ericsson affiliation? > No problem. Will update. > > nits: > > - section 1: > "On a high level" -> "At a high level" > "; (2) redirecting" -> "; and (2) redirecting" > "; (2) CDNI" -> "; and (2) CDNI" > "are already in [RFC8008]" -> "are already defined in [RFC8008]" > > - section 2.1: > "look like" -> "look" > "asn and countrycode" -> "asn, and countrycode" > "a /32 for IPv4 and a /128 for IPv6" -> "a /32 for IPv4 or a /128 for > IPv6" > "; (5) Capabilities" -> "; and (5) Capabilities" > > - section 2.2: > "have difficulty to measure" -> "have difficulty measuring" > "downstream CDN" -> "dCDN" > "QoS" -> "quality of service" ? > "cost map from dCDN" -> "cost map from the dCDN" > "therefore redirect requests to dCDN" -> "redirect requests to a dCDN" > "an upstream CDN" -> "a uCDN" > "e.g. " -> "e.g., " > > - section 3.5: > "The future documents" -> "Future documents" > > - section 3.7.2: > "delivery protocol and https/1.1" -> "delivery protocol, and https/1.1" > > - section 5: > "constrains" -> "constraints" > "only if the entry contains at least one of the client given > capabilities will it be returned to the client" -> "an entry will only be > returned to the client if it contains at least one of the client given > capabilities" > > - section 5.7.2: > "only http/1.1 delivery protocol" -> "only the http/1.1 delivery > protocol" > > - section 7.2/7.3: > remove "Besides, " > > - section 8: > "to run out of" -> "to unnecessarily consume" > "above well. However," -> " above, however," > "should not have to served by" -> "should not have to be served by" > "dCDN and it may not disclose" -> "dCDN; and it SHOULD not disclose" > "a dCDN may consider" -> "a dCDN could consider" > "And it needs to avoid expoing" -> "A dCDN SHOULD avoid exposing" > Fixed. Thanks for all the grammar check. Thanks again for the reviews. I did not see any major issues attacking the current design. The authors will fix all the issues above and submit a new version. Thanks, Jensen > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:29 AM Jan Seedorf <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear CDNI chairs and CDNI WG, >> >> the ALTO WG is finalizing "Content Delivery Network Interconnection >> (CDNI) Request Routing: CDNI Footprint and Capabilities Advertisement >> using ALTO" (draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-08). For the WGLC >> we are about to issue, we would like to have one individual review from >> a CDNI expert (the other one coming from the ALTO WG). Can you please >> name/choose/recommend a CDNI expert that can provide an individual >> review for the draft? We (ALTO chairs) would then start the WGLC ... >> >> Thanks, >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Jan >> >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
