Hi Francesca, Thanks for pointing the remaining comments out. The new version is available now:
IETF datatracker status page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto/ HTML version: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-20.html A diff from the previous version: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-20 Please let me know if you have any other comments. Thanks, Jensen On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 11:09 PM Francesca Palombini via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-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-cdni-request-routing-alto/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you for the work on this document, and for partly addressing my > previous > DISCUSS. > > Many thanks to Thomas Fossati for his in-depth review: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/MKG2Cdin96WLcksnA6nAu6pvThM/ , > and to > Alexey Melnikov for his media-types review: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/uGakYYYPVjBEwei9isTaluPwhDE/ > . > > Only 2 small changes noted by Alexey are still missing - quoting the > relevant > text in his mail > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/media-types/LU4gHAY4fQZ6vK7rh8pdSfDwTO0/ > : > > 1. >> Also when you split the registration template into 2 it would be > >> good to have a sentence here explaining how the two formats > differ. > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestion. Could you kindly give us some further > > examples about what should be explained? Do we need to explain the > > different cases where the two subtypes should be used, or just explain > > the difference between the two registration forms? > > The former. If I as an implementor read the registration, I need to > decide whether or not I should implement processing of this particular > media type. > > 2. I've just realized that you are also missing "Fragment identifier > considerations:" field after this one. (See RFC 6838) Having it as "N/A" > is fine. > > Francesca > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > alto@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
