Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-26: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for addressing my previous DISCUSS point, I have now updated my ballot position into a NO OBJECT. Nevertheless, I would have appreciated a reaction on the IPv4-only examples and the focus on TCP only but this is obviously not blocking this document. I appreciate that my other comments were used to improve the document. Regards -éric —— below is for archiving only — 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 == 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
