Re: [alto] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-17
Thanks Donald for detailed valuable review and thanks Jensen to address Donald's comments. -Qin (on behalf of chairs) -邮件原件- 发件人: alto [mailto:alto-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Donald Eastlake 发送时间: 2021年12月1日 11:47 收件人: Jensen Zhang 抄送: Last Call ; draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto@ietf.org; IETF ALTO ; int-...@ietf.org 主题: Re: [alto] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-17 Hi Jensen, Thanks for your agreeable response. I'm happy with your re-wording of the second paragraph of Section 3.7.1. Assuming the draft is changed as described in your response, I consider all my comments to have been resolved. Donald === Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 8:48 AM Jensen Zhang wrote: > > Hi Donald, > > Many thanks for your review. Please see my responses inline. > > Thanks, > Jensen > > > On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 10:19 AM Donald Eastlake via Datatracker > wrote: >> >> Reviewer: Donald Eastlake >> Review result: Ready with Issues >> >> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for >> draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-17. These comments were >> written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. >> Document editors and shepherd should treat these comments just like >> they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and >> resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been >> received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/. >> >> Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document >> as NO OBJECTION. >> >> The following are issues I found with this document that SHOULD be >> corrected before publication and some comments: >> >>I am not particularly familiar with the technology in this draft os I may >>have missed things. >> >>Abstract: I believe it should say "the exact protocol is not specified" >>adding "not". > > > Thanks for the catch. We will fix it. > >> >> >>Section 3.7.1: The second paragraph of this section is one very long >>sentence that I found confusing and which may be inconsistent. Perhaps a >>structured list would be better than simple text. > > > Good suggestion. How about the following restructure: > > OLD: > >Specifically, the IRD announces two network maps, one CDNI >Advertisement resource without dependency, one CDNI Advertisement >resource depending on a network map, one filtered CDNI Advertisement >resource to be defined in Section 5, one property map including >"cdni-capabilities" as its entity property, one filtered property map >including "cdni-capabilities" and "pid" as its entity properties, and >two update stream services (one for updating CDNI Advertisement >resources, and the other for updating property maps). > > NEW: > >Specifically, the IRD announces nine information resources as follows: > >* two network maps >* one CDNI Advertisement resource without dependency >* one CDNI Advertisement resource depending on a network map >* one filtered CDNI Advertisement resource to be defined in Section 5 >* one property map including "cdni-capabilities" as its entity property >* one filtered property map including "cdni-capabilities" and "pid" as its > entity properties >* two update stream services > + one for updating CDNI Advertisement resources > + one for updating property maps > >> >> >>Section 6.1.1.2: Seems a bit imprecise. I suggest adding at the end "as a >>decimal number without leading zeros". > > > Very good suggestion. We will add it. > >> >> >>I was favorably impressed by the relatively complete information included >>for the Authors in the Authors' Addresses Section. I wish more drafts did >>this. > > > Thanks ;) > >> >> >> The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text >> improvements) with the document: >> >>PID should be expanded on first use. Although, as far as I can see, other >>acronyms are appropriately expanded on first use. the document might >> benefit >>from a terminology section (maybe 1.1 or 2.3) as not everyone may read the >>document sequentially and remember all the expansions. > > > Reasonable suggestion. We will add such a sectio
Re: [alto] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-17
Hi Jensen, Thanks for your agreeable response. I'm happy with your re-wording of the second paragraph of Section 3.7.1. Assuming the draft is changed as described in your response, I consider all my comments to have been resolved. Donald === Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 8:48 AM Jensen Zhang wrote: > > Hi Donald, > > Many thanks for your review. Please see my responses inline. > > Thanks, > Jensen > > > On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 10:19 AM Donald Eastlake via Datatracker > wrote: >> >> Reviewer: Donald Eastlake >> Review result: Ready with Issues >> >> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for >> draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-17. These comments were written >> primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors >> and >> shepherd should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from >> any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call >> comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, >> see >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/. >> >> Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO >> OBJECTION. >> >> The following are issues I found with this document that SHOULD be corrected >> before publication and some comments: >> >>I am not particularly familiar with the technology in this draft os I may >>have missed things. >> >>Abstract: I believe it should say "the exact protocol is not specified" >>adding "not". > > > Thanks for the catch. We will fix it. > >> >> >>Section 3.7.1: The second paragraph of this section is one very long >>sentence that I found confusing and which may be inconsistent. Perhaps a >>structured list would be better than simple text. > > > Good suggestion. How about the following restructure: > > OLD: > >Specifically, the IRD announces two network maps, one CDNI >Advertisement resource without dependency, one CDNI Advertisement >resource depending on a network map, one filtered CDNI Advertisement >resource to be defined in Section 5, one property map including >"cdni-capabilities" as its entity property, one filtered property map >including "cdni-capabilities" and "pid" as its entity properties, and >two update stream services (one for updating CDNI Advertisement >resources, and the other for updating property maps). > > NEW: > >Specifically, the IRD announces nine information resources as follows: > >* two network maps >* one CDNI Advertisement resource without dependency >* one CDNI Advertisement resource depending on a network map >* one filtered CDNI Advertisement resource to be defined in Section 5 >* one property map including "cdni-capabilities" as its entity property >* one filtered property map including "cdni-capabilities" and "pid" as its > entity properties >* two update stream services > + one for updating CDNI Advertisement resources > + one for updating property maps > >> >> >>Section 6.1.1.2: Seems a bit imprecise. I suggest adding at the end "as a >>decimal number without leading zeros". > > > Very good suggestion. We will add it. > >> >> >>I was favorably impressed by the relatively complete information included >>for the Authors in the Authors' Addresses Section. I wish more drafts did >>this. > > > Thanks ;) > >> >> >> The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements) >> with the document: >> >>PID should be expanded on first use. Although, as far as I can see, other >>acronyms are appropriately expanded on first use. the document might >> benefit >>from a terminology section (maybe 1.1 or 2.3) as not everyone may read the >>document sequentially and remember all the expansions. > > > Reasonable suggestion. We will add such a section in the coming revision soon. > >> >> >>Section 2.2, 2nd *'ed paragraph, "ALTO maps can be signed" adding "be". > > > Thanks for the catch. > >> >> >>Section 3.6: I don't think the following text is needed and it could be >>deleted. It merely expresses the default that later IETF documents can >>modify earlier IETF documents. >> There may be other >> documents extending BaseAdvertisementObject and additional CDNI >> capabilities. They are outside the scope of this document. To >> support them, future documents can extend the specification defined >> in this document. > > > Agree. > >> >> >>Section 3.7.1: /// -> // >> >>Section 6.2.1: "to define" -> "defining" > > > Thanks. Will fix. > >> >> >>Section 10: It is common to include the same information for Contributors >> as >>is included for Authors in the Authors' Addresses section but that has not >>been done. > > > Good catch. We
Re: [alto] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-17
Hi Donald, Many thanks for your review. Please see my responses inline. Thanks, Jensen On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 10:19 AM Donald Eastlake via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Reviewer: Donald Eastlake > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for > draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-17. These comments were written > primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors > and > shepherd should treat these comments just like they would treat comments > from > any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call > comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, > see > https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/. > > Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO > OBJECTION. > > The following are issues I found with this document that SHOULD be > corrected > before publication and some comments: > >I am not particularly familiar with the technology in this draft os I > may >have missed things. > >Abstract: I believe it should say "the exact protocol is not specified" >adding "not". > Thanks for the catch. We will fix it. > >Section 3.7.1: The second paragraph of this section is one very long >sentence that I found confusing and which may be inconsistent. Perhaps a >structured list would be better than simple text. > Good suggestion. How about the following restructure: OLD: Specifically, the IRD announces two network maps, one CDNI Advertisement resource without dependency, one CDNI Advertisement resource depending on a network map, one filtered CDNI Advertisement resource to be defined in Section 5, one property map including "cdni-capabilities" as its entity property, one filtered property map including "cdni-capabilities" and "pid" as its entity properties, and two update stream services (one for updating CDNI Advertisement resources, and the other for updating property maps). NEW: Specifically, the IRD announces nine information resources as follows: * two network maps * one CDNI Advertisement resource without dependency * one CDNI Advertisement resource depending on a network map * one filtered CDNI Advertisement resource to be defined in Section 5 * one property map including "cdni-capabilities" as its entity property * one filtered property map including "cdni-capabilities" and "pid" as its entity properties * two update stream services + one for updating CDNI Advertisement resources + one for updating property maps > >Section 6.1.1.2: Seems a bit imprecise. I suggest adding at the end > "as a >decimal number without leading zeros". > Very good suggestion. We will add it. > >I was favorably impressed by the relatively complete information > included >for the Authors in the Authors' Addresses Section. I wish more drafts > did >this. > Thanks ;) > > The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text > improvements) > with the document: > >PID should be expanded on first use. Although, as far as I can see, > other >acronyms are appropriately expanded on first use. the document might > benefit >from a terminology section (maybe 1.1 or 2.3) as not everyone may read > the >document sequentially and remember all the expansions. > Reasonable suggestion. We will add such a section in the coming revision soon. > >Section 2.2, 2nd *'ed paragraph, "ALTO maps can be signed" adding "be". > Thanks for the catch. > >Section 3.6: I don't think the following text is needed and it could be >deleted. It merely expresses the default that later IETF documents can >modify earlier IETF documents. > There may be other > documents extending BaseAdvertisementObject and additional CDNI > capabilities. They are outside the scope of this document. To > support them, future documents can extend the specification defined > in this document. > Agree. > >Section 3.7.1: /// -> // > >Section 6.2.1: "to define" -> "defining" > Thanks. Will fix. > >Section 10: It is common to include the same information for > Contributors as >is included for Authors in the Authors' Addresses section but that has > not >been done. > Good catch. We will definitely fix this issue. We were using kramdown-rfc2629, which seems not to support the Contributors section yet. But it should work by embedding XML manually. >There are a few addition suggestions that I will send directly to the >authors. > >Really trivial: when you have > "xyz": stuff > for various values of xyz and stuff, there is no consistency in whether or > not > there is a space before the colon. > Ha, you are right. We will fix this trivial issue. > > > > ___ > alto mailing list > alto@ietf.org > ht
