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: [email protected]
> Sent Time: 2022-04-16 17:00:05 (Saturday)
> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
> Cc: "Qin Wu" <[email protected]>
> 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 : [email protected] <[email protected]>
> > Envoyé : samedi 16 avril 2022 03:49
> > À : [email protected]
> > Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]>;
> > Qin Wu <[email protected]>
> > 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
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
</[email protected]></[email protected]></[email protected]></[email protected]></[email protected]></[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
