Thank you Donald,
I just balloted a NO OBJECTION notably based on your Int-dir review.
Regards
-éric
On 27/11/2021, 03:19, "Int-dir on behalf of Donald Eastlake via Datatracker" <int-dir-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Donald Eastlake
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-17. These comments were written
primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and
shepherd should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from
any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call
comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/.
Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO
OBJECTION.
The following are issues I found with this document that SHOULD be corrected
before publication and some comments:
I am not particularly familiar with the technology in this draft os I may
have missed things.
Abstract: I believe it should say "the exact protocol is not specified"
adding "not".
Section 3.7.1: The second paragraph of this section is one very long
sentence that I found confusing and which may be inconsistent. Perhaps a
structured list would be better than simple text.
Section 6.1.1.2: Seems a bit imprecise. I suggest adding at the end "as a
decimal number without leading zeros".
I was favorably impressed by the relatively complete information included
for the Authors in the Authors' Addresses Section. I wish more drafts did
this.
The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements)
with the document:
PID should be expanded on first use. Although, as far as I can see, other
acronyms are appropriately expanded on first use. the document might benefit
from a terminology section (maybe 1.1 or 2.3) as not everyone may read the
document sequentially and remember all the expansions.
Section 2.2, 2nd *'ed paragraph, "ALTO maps can be signed" adding "be".
Section 3.6: I don't think the following text is needed and it could be
deleted. It merely expresses the default that later IETF documents can
modify earlier IETF documents.
There may be other
documents extending BaseAdvertisementObject and additional CDNI
capabilities. They are outside the scope of this document. To
support them, future documents can extend the specification defined
in this document.
Section 3.7.1: /// -> //
Section 6.2.1: "to define" -> "defining"
Section 10: It is common to include the same information for Contributors as
is included for Authors in the Authors' Addresses section but that has not
been done.
There are a few addition suggestions that I will send directly to the
authors.
Really trivial: when you have
"xyz": stuff
for various values of xyz and stuff, there is no consistency in whether or not
there is a space before the colon.
_______________________________________________
Int-dir mailing list
Int-dir@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
