Christian: thank you very much for this review! I balloted DISCUSS to make sure some issues with JSON in the examples are fixed before publication. I was happy to see almost all your comments were addressed by the authors.
Francesca From: art <[email protected]> on behalf of Christian Amsüss <[email protected]> Date: Monday, 18 October 2021 at 16:15 To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-17 Hello, On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 07:02:08AM -0700, Christian Amsüss via Datatracker wrote: > ## Summary for the IoT Directorate I performed the review with the wrong hat on, sorry for the mixup. Refocusing on the ART review criteria brings up nothing new -- but the point about the formal language used with metric-identifier deserves more emphasis. Likewise, the point about registration of the stat-typed metric identifiers (and the possible structuring of the registry into registered prefixes and per-prefix semantics for what is behind a colon) now falls more directly into the scope of the review. Otherwise, what was said with focus on the IoT applies likewise to the use of HTTP and other general ART topics: > As for conventions around the Internet of Things, this makes no choices -- if > follows the path set out by ALTO, and adds terms and considerations for > metrics > established outside of ALTO. Best regards Christian -- To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers. -- Bene Gesserit axiom
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
