Hi Ben,
Thank you so much for the wonderful review and we have taken a pass of the
document. One quick question: should we upload a newer version (v21) so
that you can check the detailed edits using diff or you prefer we post the
revised text inline in reply?
Thank you so much!
Richard
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 6:43 PM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> Hi Qin,
>
> It looks like the only topic that's potentially unresolved is the BCP 18
> question. I think internationalization is a topic where we mostly look to
> the ART ADs for guidance, and I'm reluctant to claim any kind of authority
> on the "right thing to do". Mostly I wanted to raise the topic for
> visibility in case anyone else had any thoughts; if no one else replies, I
> think the authors should do what they feel best (which could include making
> no change to the draft).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben
>
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 01:25:20PM +, Qin Wu wrote:
> > Hi, Ben:
> > -邮件原件-
> > 发件人: alto [mailto:alto-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Benjamin Kaduk
> > 发送时间: 2021年12月4日 6:30
> > 收件人: Qin Wu
> > 抄送: draft-ietf-alto-performance-metr...@ietf.org; alto@ietf.org; The
> IESG ; Y. Richard Yang ;
> alto-cha...@ietf.org
> > 主题: Re: [alto] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >
> > Hi Qin,
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 09:04:18AM +, Qin Wu wrote:
> > > Thanks Ben for detailed valuable review, see reply and clarification
> below.
> > >
> > > -邮件原件-
> > > >发件人: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker [mailto:nore...@ietf.org]
> > > >发送时间: 2021年12月2日 13:05
> > > >收件人: The IESG
> > > >抄送: draft-ietf-alto-performance-metr...@ietf.org;
> > > >alto-cha...@ietf.org; alto@ietf.org; i...@j-f-s.de; i...@j-f-s.de
> > > >主题: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on
> > > >draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> > >
> > > >Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> > > >draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-20: 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-performance-metrics/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >-
> > > >-
> > > >DISCUSS:
> > > >-
> > > >-
> > >
> > > >These should all be trivial to resolve -- just some minor internal
> inconsistencies that need to be fixed before publication.
> > >
> > > >The discussion of percentile statistical operator in §2.2 is
> internally inconsistent -- if the percentile number must be an integer,
> then p99.9 is not valid.
> > > [Qin Wu] Yes, the percentile is a number following the letter 'p', but
> > > in some case when high precision is needed, this percentile number
> will be further followed by an optional decimal part The decimal part
> should start with the '.' separator. Maybe the separator cause your
> confusion. See definition in section 2.2 for details:
> > > "
> > >percentile, with letter 'p' followed by a number:
> > > gives the percentile specified by the number following the letter
> > > 'p'. The number MUST be a non-negative JSON integer in the range
> > > [0, 100] (i.e., greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal
> > > to 100), followed by an optional decimal part, if a higher
> > > precision is needed. The decimal part should start with the '.'
> > > separator (U+002E), and followed by a sequence of one or more
> > > ASCII numbers between '0' and '9'.
> > > "
> > > Let us know if you think separator should be changed or you live with
> the current form.
> >
> > Oops, that's my mistake and you are correct. Sorry about that; I agree
> that no change is needed here.
> >
> > [Qin Wu] Great, thanks.
> > > >Also, the listing of "cost-source" values introduced by this document
> (in §5.1) does not include "nominal", but we do also introduce "nominal".
> > > [Qin Wu] I agree with this inconsistency issue, should be fixed in the
> next version. Thanks.
> > > >Similarly, in §3.1.3 we refer to the "-" component of a
> cost metric string, that has been generalized to an arbitrary statistical
> operator.
> > > [Qin Wu] No, it is not arbitrary statistics operator, We did add a
> > > statement to say "
> > >Since the identifier
> > >does not include the - component, the values will
> > >represent median values.
> > > "
> > > The median value has been defined in the section 2.1 as middle-point
> > > of the observation, see median definition in section 2.2 "
> > >
