On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 12:16 AM wrote:
> Deal!
>
>
>
> As you can see at
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-05, went with
> a more verbose text to insist on this + add a MUST for implementations.
>
Ship it!
-MSK
___
alto
On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 11:54 PM wrote:
> [Med] That wording was on purpose. We could easily turn that text into the
> following:
>
> NEW:
> If the definition of a cost mode does not indicate whether it
> applies to a subset of cost metrics, ALTO implementations
> MUST be prepared to accept
>
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-24
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Murray S. Kucherawy
> *Sent:* Monday, February 28, 2022 4:09 PM
> *To:* Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <
> sabine.randriam...@nokia-bell-
Thanks, those all sound like improvements to me. If you let me know when
-24 is up, I can review it once more.
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:38 AM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia -
FR/Paris-Saclay) wrote:
> Hello Murray,
> Thank you very much for your review and guidance.
> I apologize as I realized I
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 3:44 AM Jensen Zhang
wrote:
>
> What your text tells me is that your document describes what a valid
>> instance of this media type's payload looks like. That's sort of obvious
>> though. What RFC 6838 is asking for goes beyond that, and gives a few
>> examples of what
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 4:03 AM Jensen Zhang
wrote:
>
> The "Interoperability considerations" part of Section 7.1 doesn't seem to
>> be a
>> complete answer to the corresponding guidance in Section 6.2 of RFC 6838.
>>
>>
> The authors will be appreciated if you can give any further comments or
>
