Re: [Last-Call] [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-17

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello,

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 07:02:08AM -0700, Christian Amsüss via Datatracker wrote:
> ## Summary for the IoT Directorate

I performed the review with the wrong hat on, sorry for the mixup.


Refocusing on the ART review criteria brings up nothing new -- but the
point about the formal language used with metric-identifier deserves
more emphasis.

Likewise, the point about registration of the stat-typed metric
identifiers (and the possible structuring of the registry into
registered prefixes and per-prefix semantics for what is behind a colon)
now falls more directly into the scope of the review.

Otherwise, what was said with focus on the IoT applies likewise to the
use of HTTP and other general ART topics:

> As for conventions around the Internet of Things, this makes no choices -- if
> follows the path set out by ALTO, and adds terms and considerations for metrics
> established outside of ALTO.

Best regards
Christian

-- 
To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers.
  -- Bene Gesserit axiom

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux