>> While extensions to a protocol don't necessitate an Updates: clause,
>> in this case I think it should because the document addresses
>> shortcomings in the original protocol. That is, new implementations
>> are expected to really require implementing this new document as part
>> of the "cor
Hi, Sebastian and Sabine:
-邮件原件-
发件人: alto [mailto:alto-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Sebastian Kiesel
发送时间: 2021年10月20日 4:07
收件人: Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)
抄送: alto-chairs ; Qin Wu ;
draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new@ietf.org; alto@ietf.org
主题: Re: [alto] Update RFC7285 f
Hi Sabine,
I agree that "specifies an optional extension" may be considered
redundant and a bit overly explicit. Once the RFC is published
without the "updates" tag, a first sentence "This document specifies an
extension to the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol,
which ..." w
Hi Qin and Sebastian,
Thanks for the discussion. I agree with your conclusions and do not see the
need to indicate "updates" and definitely not "obsoletes".
This extension does not oppose entities against endpoints. Therefore it does
not intend to replace endpoints with entities but adds entit
Hello Paul,
Thanks a lot for your review. A new version is under edition to address your
comments.
Please see inline how we plan to address them. Can you let us know whether the
proposed updates meet your expectations?
Best regards,
Sabine and co-authors
>-Original Message-
>From: Pau
Dear all,
Sorry for the confusion
Indeed we have two scheduled meetings. The first meeting (9-10) will be mainly
for draft authors to give updates, since the draft submission deadline is
October 25, one day before our next meeting slot. The second meeting (10-11)
will be on potential integrati
