Hi, I am not sure whether this is an editorial erratum. Not even sure whether this issue is an erratum at all - or maybe a specification/policy change that, if desired, should be made through some consensus process that leads to an RFC updating RFC 7285.
The original idea was to establish an IANA registry "ALTO Cost Metric Registry", which is initially populated with only one entry "routingcost". Furthermore, section 10.6. specifies that identifiers prefixed with "priv:" are reserved for Private Use without a need to register with IANA. So technically, the report is correct, "priv:" as such is not a cost metric. I think it is still valuable to have it in the table, as a reminder to IANA, not to register names starting with "priv:". Maybe we should have written "priv:*" along with a further explanation that the star means further characters, but I doubt that this would have added clarity. If the erratum report is just for cosmetic reasons, removing a prefix from a table that should hold only complete names ... well ... I'd say this is not worth the effort, maybe even harmful. If, on the other hand, the intention is to deprecate the whole idea of having a part of the namespace for private use without IANA registration, this should IMO go through a broader consensuns process and not through an erratum. Just my two cents, being one of the original authors. WG Chairs / AD, please advise. thanks, Sebastian On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 01:39:12PM -0800, Chris Smiley wrote: > > Greetings, > > We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial. > Please note that we have changed the “Type” of the following errata > report to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the > Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/). > > You may review the report at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6874 > > Please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-verify/ for further > information on how to verify errata reports. > > Further information on errata can be found at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php. > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/cs > > > > On Mar 8, 2022, at 12:50 AM, RFC Errata System <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7285, > > "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol". > > > > -------------------------------------- > > You may review the report below and at: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6874 > > > > -------------------------------------- > > Type: Editorial > > Reported by: Mohamed BOUCADAIR <[email protected]> > > > > Section: 14.2 > > > > Original Text > > ------------- > > > > +-------------+---------------------+ > > | Identifier | Intended Semantics | > > +-------------+---------------------+ > > | routingcost | See Section 6.1.1.1 | > > | priv: | Private use | > > +-------------+---------------------+ > > > > Table 3: ALTO Cost Metrics > > > > Corrected Text > > -------------- > > > > +-------------+---------------------+ > > | Identifier | Intended Semantics | > > +-------------+---------------------+ > > | routingcost | See Section 6.1.1.1 | > > +-------------+---------------------+ > > > > Table 3: ALTO Cost Metrics > > > > Notes > > ----- > > priv: is not a cost metric but a prefix > > > > Instructions: > > ------------- > > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > > > -------------------------------------- > > RFC7285 (draft-ietf-alto-protocol-27) > > -------------------------------------- > > Title : Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol > > Publication Date : September 2014 > > Author(s) : R. Alimi, Ed., R. Penno, Ed., Y. Yang, Ed., S. > > Kiesel, S. Previdi, W. Roome, S. Shalunov, R. Woundy > > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > > Source : Application-Layer Traffic Optimization > > Area : Transport > > Stream : IETF > > Verifying Party : IESG > > > _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
