Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-alto-04-00: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-alto/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The "Milestones and Deliverables" should probably be converted into datatracker-native milestones. o Provide a place to collect implementation deployment and experience. It is hoped that ALTO practioners will report their experiences on the mailing list, and the working group will track implementation and deployment reports on a wiki or in an Internet-Draft. I assume this is "an Internet-Draft not expected to be published as an RFC". protocol specifications: The working group will develop and publish updates as necessary to resolve any interoperability, performance, operational, or security, or privacy problems that arise. The working group will also help (nit) we probably only need one "or" at the end of the list. o Develop operational support tools for the ALTO protocol. Based on experience from deployments, the advice in RFC 7971, and considering the latest opinions and techniques from the Operations and Management Area, the working group will develop tools to configure, operate, and manage the ALTO protocol and networks that use ALTO. This may include YANG models and OAM mechanisms. The working group may also update RFC 7971 in the light of new experience and protocol features that were added to ALTO after that RFC was published. Are IPPM or any other WGs not in OPS going to be worth collaborating with for this work? o Support for modern transport protocols. When work on ALTO began, the protocol was supported using HTTP version 1. Since then, the IETF has developed HTTP/2 (nit) "was supported using" may not be conveying the desired meaning (vs "only supported using", "supported using", "was using", "used", etc.) o Conduct a survey of working group participants and the wider community to discover ALTO implementation and deployment experience. Record the results in a publicly visible wiki. (The earlier text mentioned wiki or draft, but this only mentions a wiki; it's probably worth being consistent between mentions.) o Develop and standardize at least one OAM mechanism to support ALTO, including a YANG model for configuration and management of ALTO servers. Under what conditions might more than one mechanism be desirable? _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
