Re: [alto] New draft on joint exposure of network and compute information

So, my view is that CATS is specifically chartered to look at these metrics. I think the metrics could equally be applied in ALTO (as I said at IETF-117 in the ALTO WG meeting). I had hoped that we might hold an interim to discuss metrics, but progress has been slow. That said, the CATS list has

Re: [alto] IETF ALTO 118 side meeting on exposure of network and compute information for edge computing

Hi Jordi, Thanks for the heads-up on this meeting. It will clearly be of interest to the CATS working group although it is unclear from your brief summary of the issue whether you intend exposure of information to "the application" (by which I think you may mean the programs running on a host)

[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.

[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 id

Re: [alto] ALTO deployment wiki page updates

Hi Richard, This is a great resource. Thanks for the effort. In view of the review of draft-ietf-alto-new-transport just in from Martin Thomson, I wonder about adding a feature column for “TIPS” and maybe one for “HTTP version” A From: alto On Behalf Of Y. Richard Yang Sent: 23 M

Re: [alto] New transport structural discussion thread

Hey, Richard! I see nothing wrong in what you describe here. Actually, this is really good text and cut’n’paste may be your friend in terms of adding clarity to your draft. A From: Y. Richard Yang Sent: 20 February 2023 04:45 To: IETF ALTO ; Adrian Farrel ; Qin (Bill) Wu

Re: [alto] [Can] Clean copy CAN charter updated

:c...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Can] Clean copy CAN charter updated Just to close the loop, the charter (still below) that Adrian distributed today looks good enough to me. Yours, Joel On 2/12/2023 3:07 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > Per the planned schedule, her

[alto] A review of draft-ietf-alto-new-transport

Hi, Prompted by the new revision and Qin's email, I decided to have a look at this latest version of draft-ietf-alto-new-transport. Thanks to the authors for all the effort put in to add this important functions to ALTO. I hope these comments help. Best, Adrian === First thing to say is that

Re: [alto] WG adoption call for draft-schott-alto-new-transport-01

Hi, I've read this draft and it is clearly in scope as it targets one of the WG's milestones. I think it is a reasonable starting point for this work and should be adopted. (I presume that a separate document will address the second half of the milestone, namely HTTP/3.) I wish we would all get i

Re: [alto] Call for adoption: draft-zhang-alto-oam-yang

Hi, I'm a day late on this, sorry. And I see that Med has already called consensus for adoption. Nevertheless, for the record. I did a review of revision -01 of this draft on the mailing list back in January. As I said then, I believe this will be a useful component to support the operation

Re: [alto] Call for Adoption: draft-bw-alto-cost-mode-01

I agree with Dhruv about experimentation. We don’t want to encourage “squatting” on code points even for experiments because that typically results in code being deployed and (if we’re lucky) late requests for assignment of code points. The idea of a single experimental code point is that it en

Re: [alto] Call for Adoption: draft-bw-alto-cost-mode-01

Thanks Kai, I had a quick look at the draft: it is blissfully short! Looks to me that this document is needed and should be adopted. Two small points in Section 4: I think you should add a "description" to the registry for each cost mode. Please don't use BCP14 language in the IANA section. So

Re: [alto] A quick review of draft-zhang-alto-oam-yang

Hi Jensen, Thanks for following up. The Title says the document is about OAM for ALTO protocol, but the Abstract says "operations and management". I prefer the Abstract's choice of words. Thanks for raising this issue. I double-checked RFC6291 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc62

[alto] A quick review of draft-zhang-alto-oam-yang

Hi authors, Thanks for starting this work on a YANG model for ALTO servers. I believe this will be a useful component to support the operational features of ALTO in real deployments. I have done a "sanity review" rather than a detailed technical review. In summary, this looks like a

Re: [alto] WG Review: ALTO Charter Update

Hi Qin, Chairs, Thanks for this. > Dear Martin and working group, > > Thank you for the useful rechartering discussions on the mailing list and at IETF-110. > > I have listened to the people who say that further protocol work needs to be based on > strong deployment needs, and I also hear very ma

Re: [alto] Some help wrt ALTO and draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-07.txt

...@olddog.co.uk Cc: Y. Richard Yang; IETF ALTO Subject: Re: [alto] Some help wrt ALTO and draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-07.txt Dear ALTOs, On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: Hi again Richard, We are in no rush. It is better to have some considered and structured text in

[alto] Call for review draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture

Hi, The authors of draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture are in the process of requesting AD-sponsored publication of draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture This I-D is a bit of an architecture and a bit an applicability statement. It spans quite a lot of IETF technology including ALTO. The las

[alto] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-alto-03-01: (with COMMENT)

Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-alto-03-01: No Objection 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.) The document, along

Re: [alto] re-chartering discussion slides

Hi, Sorry that I am trying to process this during IETF week and not able to focus properly. > A version (subject to change) has been posted on the meetings material page. I am trying to separate out the network layers and the use cases for the proposals in this slideset. For example, slide 24 h

Re: [alto] Some help wrt ALTO and draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-07.txt

alistic "valentine" commitment will be Feb. 24 :-) Thanks! Richard On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: Hi ALTO WG, Our draft pulling together a number of existing IETF components into a single architecture for application-based network operations is progressing nicely.

[alto] Some help wrt ALTO and draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-07.txt

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > > Title : A PCE-based Architecture for Application-based Network > Operations > Authors : Daniel King > Adrian Farrel >