Subject: [alto] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-17: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2021 23:44:43 -0800

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-17: 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.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I concur with Francesca's DISCUSS.

Please provide at least one complete sentence in Sections 3.3, 3.4, 5.4,
6.1.1.1, and 6.1.2.1.  For example:

  There are no applicable Accept Input parameters.

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.

---

From: Jensen Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 20:03:13 +0800

Hi Murray,

Thanks for your comments. Please see the authors' response inline.

Thanks,
Jensen

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto/

That makes sense. We have added such sentences in the coming revision.
Thanks.

> 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
suggestions on this.
For our understanding, the referenced sections in the registration table
("Specification" column) have described the structure and parsing of the
corresponding messages. Are they not enough for the "Interoperability
considerations"? Could you give any tips about what is missing here? Many
thanks.

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 23:02:11 -0800

> considerations"? Could you give any tips about what is missing here? Many

Sure.  The paragraph I'm citing in RFC 6838 says this about
Interoperability Considerations:

      Any issues regarding the interoperable use of types employing this
      structured syntax should be given here.  Examples would include
      the existence of incompatible versions of the syntax, issues
      combining certain charsets with the syntax, or incompatibilities
      with other types or protocols.

Your document has this text:

      This document specifies formats of conforming messages and the
      interpretation thereof.

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 you might want to discuss here.

If there were no prior versions of this media type, and it has no known
incompatibilities with other protocols or character sets, etc., you can
simply put "None" in this part of the form.  Or if there is something that
should be considered, this part of the form should include such a
discussion.

-MSK

---

From: Jensen Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 19:43:55 +0800

> should be considered, this part of the form should include such a

Many thanks for your clarification. As far as I know, the new registered
media types do not have any prior versions. They do neither have any known
incompatibility issues. Are you suggesting that we should explicitly put
such statements in the paragraph?

Jensen

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 08:05:04 -0800

> such statements in the paragraph?

OK, so I think your "Interoperability Considerations" section should just
be "None".  The text you have makes it unclear to me whether there are (or
are not) any concerns like what RFC 6838 anticipates.  "None" is actually
more definitive.

-MSK

---

From: Jensen Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:54:46 +0800

Hi Murray,

A new version that echoes the replies already provided in this thread is
available:

URL:            https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-alto-cdni
-request-routing-alto-18.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cdni
-request-routing-alto/
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-alto-cdni
-request-routing-alto-18
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-alto-cdni
-request-routing-alto-18.txt

Some more context is provided inline for some changes made in this version
to better address your comments.

Please let me know if you still have any comments. Thanks.

Cheers,
Jensen

> are not) any concerns like what RFC 6838 anticipates.  "None" is actually

Thanks. To make it consistent with other sections of the form, I change
"Interoperability Considerations" to "n/a". I hope it addresses your
concern.