Re: [alto] draft-ietf-alto-new-transport : Call for volunteers to review 2nd WGLC for ALTO docs
Hi Adrian, Thanks for the review. We will fix the unused reference issue. Best, Kai -Original Messages- From:"Adrian Farrel" Sent Time:2023-05-22 06:09:42 (Monday) To: "'Jordi Ros Giralt'" , alto@ietf.org Cc: Subject: [alto] draft-ietf-alto-new-transport : Call for volunteers to review 2nd WGLC for ALTO docs Hi Jordi / all, I reviewed this draft at revision -05 and had quite a pile of comments. Looking at -08, I think all my comments were addressed. My relatively quick read through of the current revision found no issues and so I think the document is now ready to move forward. Note that idnits observes that RFC 7971 is an unused reference. Cheers, Adrian From: alto On Behalf Of Jordi Ros Giralt Sent: 17 May 2023 06:41 To: alto@ietf.org Subject: [alto] Call for volunteers to review 2nd WGLC for ALTO docs Hi ALTO WG: As you know, we are in the process of issuing the 2nd WGLC for two of the ALTO drafts (New Transport and OAM). Thank you to all of you who have been working hard to help get these documents completed, including all the detailed feedback provided by reviewers during the first WGLC. There is now a need (as mentioned by the chairs) to have as many eyes & volunteers review the docs to make sure they are in the best possible shape. I can volunteer to review both documents. Richard also volunteered, thank you Richard. We would like to suggest targeting two more volunteers. Could any of you help support this work? We are targeting 22/05 to complete this new round of revisions, as that's the target day for the 2nd WGLC. These are the docs: - New Transport: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/ - OAM: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/ Please feel free to forward this email if you know others (inside or ouside ALTO) who can help review the docs too. As we are working to wrap up the current charter, this is very important work to ensure the quality of the documents produced by ALTO. Thank you for your collaboration. Jordi, on behalf of ALTO ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
[alto] draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang review (Part 1)
Hi Jensen, all, Thank you for authoring the OAM document. It clearly is a massive effort on an important task that helps with ALTO development. In the first part of this review, I will focus on early text and structure. I will review the yang model details soon. High-level structure: My understanding of the model structure is that it consists of (Figure 2) - a set of alto clients - an alto server It helps, to me, that Figure 2 gives all of the top-level structures; that is, it lists the complete first-level structures under alto-server, instead of using ... In particular, the structure appears to be a bit interleaved. For example, - It looks that the access control is somehow flattened into the top alto-server container (Figure 2): auth-client and role Should they belong to a sub structure that defines access control? Such a contained structure may allow easier replacement/plug and play? Similar to access control, sever level op also appears to be flattened (Figure 4). For example, why is cost-type in the top level? In general, what is the principle to define the current container structure? It helps to clarify. Some details Abs/Intro: I appreciate that the document follows RFC6291 when using the terms, Operations, Administration, Maintenance, Management, OAM, and O But these terms are defined for the context of managing a network, not a service such as ALTO. It helps to clarify/motivate why this document can follow RFC6291. It looks like this document uses only O and if so, it helps to make clear that this is the case. Abs: “The operator can use these data models to set up an ALTO server, ..” => “The operator of an ALTO server can use these data models to set up the ALTO server, “ More generally, it helps to give an order of the workflow. For example, the words “set up” and “create” appear to be redundant. Also, the abstract mentions sever but the document also has client. Intro: “This document defines a YANG data model”, but the title and abs say models. The rest of the 1st paragraph uses one model. It helps to be consistent in saying models or model. You may search the document and find model vs models and be consistent (e.g., first para of 4.2). It might be that a model consists of multiple modules. Intro: “implementation-agnostic“. It helps to make clear the list in Section 4.1 early. Intro: “... the design will also be extensible for future standard extensions.” This is a hard-to-defend statement because an extension could be a major change. How about not making this statement? Overall suggestion: reorganize paragraphs 2,3,4. Sec. 3.1 “names of data nodes and other data model objects are often used without a prefix, as long as it is clear from the context in which YANG module each name is defined. Otherwise, names are prefixed using the standard prefix associated with the corresponding YANG module” => // use singular “the complete name of a data node or data model object includes a prefix, which indicates the YANG module in which the name is defined. We omit the prefix when the YANG module is clear from the context; otherwise, we include the prefix. The prefixes indicating the corresponding YANG modules are shown in Table 1” Sec. 3.2 3.3: Does Table 1 miss a few prefixes, for example, ncc? Sec. 4.1: “Functionality/capability configuration of ALTO services.” => “Configuring functionality/capability of ALTO services.” to be consistent with the other items Sec 4.4: “Figure 1 shows a reference architecture for the ALTO server implementation.” => Figure 1 shows a reference architecture for an ALTO server implementation.” ? Sec. 5.1: Thanks for providing a reference architecture. Two quick comments. (1) It helps to say a few words about what a client is and hence one may get a sense of the client id it. Is it a running instance or a template? (2) An immediate reaction is that a “data source” can be another alto client, for multi-domain integration. Sec. 5.3 “The ALTO server instance contains a set of data nodes server-level operation and management for ALTO that are shown in Figure 4.” Fragmented sentence? Sec. 5.3.2 shonw Sec. 5: ird -> IRD in text because it is an acronym? ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
[alto] draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang : Call for volunteers to review 2nd WGLC for ALTO docs
Hi, I looked at revision -07 This is a really big document and would probably benefit from a more detailed review than I was able to give it. But it looks fine and ready to progress to me. A couple of nits. Section 4.3 might usefully describe that this is an additional requirement. You might reference draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis instead of RFC6991. You'll be behind it in the queue, so you can safely use it as a normative reference. That'll be a bit more future-proof. Cheers, Adrian From: alto On Behalf Of Jordi Ros Giralt Sent: 17 May 2023 06:41 To: alto@ietf.org Subject: [alto] Call for volunteers to review 2nd WGLC for ALTO docs Hi ALTO WG: As you know, we are in the process of issuing the 2nd WGLC for two of the ALTO drafts (New Transport and OAM). Thank you to all of you who have been working hard to help get these documents completed, including all the detailed feedback provided by reviewers during the first WGLC. There is now a need (as mentioned by the chairs) to have as many eyes & volunteers review the docs to make sure they are in the best possible shape. I can volunteer to review both documents. Richard also volunteered, thank you Richard. We would like to suggest targeting two more volunteers. Could any of you help support this work? We are targeting 22/05 to complete this new round of revisions, as that's the target day for the 2nd WGLC. These are the docs: - New Transport: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/ - OAM: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/ Please feel free to forward this email if you know others (inside or ouside ALTO) who can help review the docs too. As we are working to wrap up the current charter, this is very important work to ensure the quality of the documents produced by ALTO. Thank you for your collaboration. Jordi, on behalf of ALTO ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
[alto] draft-ietf-alto-new-transport : Call for volunteers to review 2nd WGLC for ALTO docs
Hi Jordi / all, I reviewed this draft at revision -05 and had quite a pile of comments. Looking at -08, I think all my comments were addressed. My relatively quick read through of the current revision found no issues and so I think the document is now ready to move forward. Note that idnits observes that RFC 7971 is an unused reference. Cheers, Adrian From: alto On Behalf Of Jordi Ros Giralt Sent: 17 May 2023 06:41 To: alto@ietf.org Subject: [alto] Call for volunteers to review 2nd WGLC for ALTO docs Hi ALTO WG: As you know, we are in the process of issuing the 2nd WGLC for two of the ALTO drafts (New Transport and OAM). Thank you to all of you who have been working hard to help get these documents completed, including all the detailed feedback provided by reviewers during the first WGLC. There is now a need (as mentioned by the chairs) to have as many eyes & volunteers review the docs to make sure they are in the best possible shape. I can volunteer to review both documents. Richard also volunteered, thank you Richard. We would like to suggest targeting two more volunteers. Could any of you help support this work? We are targeting 22/05 to complete this new round of revisions, as that's the target day for the 2nd WGLC. These are the docs: - New Transport: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/ - OAM: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/ Please feel free to forward this email if you know others (inside or ouside ALTO) who can help review the docs too. As we are working to wrap up the current charter, this is very important work to ensure the quality of the documents produced by ALTO. Thank you for your collaboration. Jordi, on behalf of ALTO ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
[alto] Weekly github digest (ALTO Github Activity Summary)
Events Issues -- * ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang (+0/-3/6) 3 issues received 6 new comments: - #37 Clarify typedef of list keys (2 by boucadair, fno2010) https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/issues/37 [WGLC] [yangdoctors] - #33 Security Considerations (1 by QiufangMa) https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/issues/33 [WGLC] - #18 Notifications when some resource limits are reached (3 by QiufangMa, fno2010) https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/issues/18 [enhancement] [WGLC] 3 issues closed: - Clarify typedef of list keys https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/issues/37 [WGLC] [yangdoctors] - Notifications when some resource limits are reached https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/issues/18 [enhancement] [WGLC] - IDNITS https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/issues/67 [WGLC] * ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport (+1/-1/2) 1 issues created: - normative language for http responses (by boucadair) https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/issues/24 [WGLC] 2 issues received 2 new comments: - #15 Terminology (1 by emiapwil) https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/issues/15 [WGLC] [Dir_Review] [httpdir] - #4 To what extent this work adheres to "Building Protocols with HTTP" BCP (1 by boucadair) https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/issues/4 [WGLC] 1 issues closed: - To what extent this work adheres to "Building Protocols with HTTP" BCP https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/issues/4 [WGLC] Pull requests - * ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport (+1/-0/0) 1 pull requests submitted: - Avoid Orphan Subsections (by boucadair) https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/pull/25 [WGLC] Repositories tracked by this digest: --- * https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang * https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport * https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/wg-materials ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
