Subject: [alto] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-17: (with DISCUSS)

From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 14:34:52 -0800

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-17: Discuss

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Thomas Fossati for his in-depth review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/MKG2Cdin96WLcksnA6nAu6pvThM/ , and
thanks to the authors for addressing it.

I have two comments that need to be addressed before publication.

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a
DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion; I really think that the
document would be improved with a change here, but can be convinced otherwise.

Francesca

1. -----

     data:   },
     data:   { "op": "add",
     data:     "/cdni-advertisement/capabilities-with-footprints
     /0/footprints/0/footprint-value/-",
     data:     "value": "192.0.2.0/24"
     data:   }
     data: ]

FP: JSON doesn't validate. The key "path": is missing.

2. -----

Media type registration

FP: I haven't seen the media type registrations being reviewed by the
media-type mailing list, as requested by RFC 6838. Before progressing the
document, I would really appreciate the authors to post the registrations to
the media-type mailing list for review. Note that people there might also weigh
in to the point Thomas made about the media type name, and if it's worth
specifying a more detailed media type name, or not in this case.

---

From: Jensen Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 16:06:02 +0800

Hi Francesca,

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

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

Thanks. This issue has been fixed.

> specifying a more detailed media type name, or not in this case.
We have sent registration request email to media-type mailing list:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/m2HjCMBCmJtFkRVsOTgN_qNkhas/

Please let us know if there is anything else we need to follow. Thanks.

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