Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-19: 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.) 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-path-vector/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. Special thanks to Vijay Gurbani for the shepherd's write-up as it seems to indicate a low number of WGLC reviews. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric While it seems clear that knowledge of the path to some endpoints can help the applications to select the "most suitable" endpoints to connect to, I wonder whether knowledge about a single ISP will be enough. Assuming that a single ISP is the topic of this I-D as the singular form "ISP" is used rather than "ISPs". Nothing bad of course, but I read this IETF draft more like an IRTF draft, i.e., it reads more like research and conjectures. As only "max-reservable-bandwidth" is actually specified to this document, I wonder whether other characteristics/properties could also have been defined, e.g., max-latency, max-packet-drop, ... ? -- Section 3 -- May I assume that the first paragraph should be removed before publication? If so, then please add a note to the RFC Editor. -- Section 4.2.1 -- On figure 5, please use consistently "v" or "V" but not a mix. Unsure whether "f1" label (?) should be in the picture as it brings nothing. -- Section 4.2.2 -- I find amusing to see the old telephony concept of "central office(CO)" being used in an IETF draft ;-) == NITS == -- Section 1 -- Please expand IRD at first use. -- Section 8.1 (and other places) -- Please use only lowercase in IPv6 addresses (and thank you for finally using some IPv6 examples) _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
