Thanks Eric, I think you mean RFC 8321? I am in the early stages of AD sponsoring a draft to update that to PS. The authors have the choice of doing a downref or referring to 8321bis and being stuck in the RFCEd queue for a few extra months.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 3:32 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-19: Discuss > > 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.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you for the work put into this document. Please bear with my lack of > knowledge about ALTO in general. > > Please find below one trivial blocking DISCUSS points (probably easy to > address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be > appreciated > even if only for my own education), and some nits. > > Special thanks to Jan Seedorf for the shepherd's write-up about the WG > consensus (even if not using the usual template). > > I have appreciated the "operational considerations" section as it addresses > many questions that popped up during reading the document; notably, how > can the > ALTO server measure any metric between the ALTO client and a resource. > > I hope that this helps to improve the document, > > Regards, > > -éric > > == DISCUSS == > > -- Section 4.1.3 -- > A very trivial DISCUSS to fix: this document relies on RFC 8312 to specify > how > TCP throughput is estimated but RFC 8312 does not appear in the normative > reference list (this will probably generate a down ref though). > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > == COMMENTS == > > Minor regret about the examples as they are all about the IPv4 address > family > especially in a world of happy eyeballs where the IPv4 and IPv6 paths may > still > have different performance metrics. > > -- Section 2.1 -- > Should the figure 1 use "perf monitoring tools" rather than "management > tool" ? > > -- Section 4 -- > This section title is about 'bandwidth' but the first sub-section is about > 'throughput', while these concepts are related they are also distinct. How > can > the reader reconciliate them ? > > -- Section 4.1 -- > Is the intent of ALTO to only work for TCP and not for other transport > protocols ? I.e., is QUIC out of scope ? > > -- Section 4.2.3 -- > Where are those 'tunnels' in "by subtracting tunnel reservations " coming > from > ? Probably about RSVP-TE but what is the link with ALTO ? (Again I am not > familiar with ALTO so this may be an uneducated question). > > == NITS == > > -- Section 3.1.3 -- > Probably tedious to do but why not replacing "TBA" by the actual value in > the > examples for 'content-length' ? > > > >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
