n Wu wrote:
>
> Hi, Jensen:
>
> Speak as individual, My answer to your following question is false as
> well, even based on RFC7285, defining hopecount as float point value seem
> also weird.
>
> I think we can rely on implementation or some automation tools for
; Kai Gao
主题: Re: [alto] Review for draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-12
Hi Qin,
I agree with you that the constraints checking should rely on the
implementation. I'm OK that it is not in the scope of this document.
For other comments, I have checked v-13. I think most of them have been
>
> -Qin
>
> [alto] Review for draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-12
>
> Jensen Zhang Tue, 13 October 2020 04:17 UTCShow
> header
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/qZrkPza-vEUcIqQMR3OJfk8G-uw/>
>
> Dear ALTOers and authors of draft-ietf-alto-perfo
.
For other comments, I think Richard have addressed in v-13. Please double check
it. Thanks
-Qin
[alto] Review for draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-12
Jensen Zhang Tue, 13 October 2020 04:17 UTCShow
header<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/qZrkPza-vEUcIqQMR3OJfk8G-uw/>
Dear A
Dear ALTOers and authors of draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-12,
Below is my review for draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-12.
Best regards,
Jensen
==
General issue:
The document is well written. I only have one question about the design
part
Dear ALTO WG
I have done a review of the Performance Metrics draft (-12).
No major problems regarding the technical part,
Other comments related to consistency and clarity are in the attached file
(marked with [DANNY])
Best regards,
Danny Lachos
ALTO Working Group
Dear ALTO WG,
Below is my review for the performance metrics draft.
The document is well written and easy to follow. The specifications are also
well-organized. I do not see major problems with the technical contents.
However, there are a few typos and inconsistent usage of terms, as
