Hi Med, Thanks for the quick update but I have one additional comment on the registry specification: I suggest adding the following paragraphs after the registry table:
NEW: Requests to add a new value to the registry MUST include the following information: o Identifier: The name of the ALTO cost mode. o Intended Semantics: A document defining a new cost mode must indicate how costs should be interpreted (Section 6.1.2 of [RFC7285]). For example, the "numerical" cost mode indicates the costs are interpreted as values on which numerical operations can be applied. Best, Kai > -----Original Messages----- > From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > Sent Time: 2022-04-16 17:00:05 (Saturday) > To: "kai...@scu.edu.cn" <kai...@scu.edu.cn>, "alto@ietf.org" <alto@ietf.org> > Cc: "Qin Wu" <bill...@huawei.com> > Subject: Re: [alto] Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-01 > > Hi Kai, > > The changes are raisonnable. > > A new version that implements the changes edits is now online. > > Thanks. > > Cheers, > Med > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : kai...@scu.edu.cn <kai...@scu.edu.cn> > > Envoyé : samedi 16 avril 2022 03:49 > > À : alto@ietf.org > > Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; > > Qin Wu <bill...@huawei.com> > > Objet : Shepherd review for draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-01 > > > > Dear WG and authors of draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode, > > > > I am posting this review of draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-01 to the > > mailing list, as part of my shepherd write-up. Any comments and > > feedback are more than welcome! > > > > Best, > > Kai > > > > =================== > > > > This draft extends the base ALTO protocol (RFC 7285) by relaxing > > the constraint on valid cost mode values and introducing a new > > IANA (sub-)registry to document new cost mode values. The > > motivation is clear and the proposed mechanism is clean. Most > > comments raised in Call for Adoption and WGLC are addressed in the > > latest revision except Dhruv's comment [1] on giving more detailed > > specifications of the contents in IANA registry. There are two > > remaining comments and I think the draft is ready for publication > > once they are addressed. > > > > Comments: > > > > Section 3.1, last paragraph: The paragraph says > > > > Future documents that define a new cost mode SHOULD indicate > > whether > > that new cost mode applies to all or a subset of cost metrics. > > > > In that case, it seems to me that the default behavior should be > > specified in case the applicability of the new cost mode is not > > indicated. Either the "SHOULD" keyword is replaced by "MUST" or an > > additional sentence is required, e.g., > > > > NEW: > > If not explicitly specified, the new cost mode applies to all > > cost metrics. > > > > Section 4: > > > > I also agree with Dhruv's comment that the contents of the "ALTO > > Cost Modes" > > registry should be better specified. While the initial entries set > > good examples of how to register a new cost mode, it can still be > > helpful if the format and content of each field are specified in > > more details, e.g., using similar specifications in Sections 14.2 > > and 14.3 of RFC 7285 (as suggested by Dhruv). > > > > I also suggest renaming the "Specification" field to "Intended > > Semantics", to be consistent with other ALTO registries (in RFC > > 7285 and in the unified property draft). > > > > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/B1agkfVtdu7tsad2- > > MzErQXMk44/ > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > alto@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto </bill...@huawei.com></mohamed.boucad...@orange.com></kai...@scu.edu.cn></bill...@huawei.com></alto@ietf.org></kai...@scu.edu.cn> _______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto