Subject: [alto] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-24: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2022 10:41:31 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-24: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-path-vector/

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

-22 to -24 should resolve discuss

A huge thanks to all involved for the quick turnaround in updating this
document and getting draft-bw-alto-cost-mode in place to help
rationalize the IANA registry situation across the ALTO documents!  I'm
sorry that my turnaround time here was not so quick.

Fortunately, I can report that the changes address my previous Discuss
concern and comments, and I have just one additional comment, in Section 6.5.2:

   The cost mode "array" indicates that every cost value in the response
   body of a (Filtered) Cost Map or an Endpoint Cost Service MUST be
   interpreted as a JSON array object.  This cost mode can be applied to
   all cost metrics.

Would it be accurate to say that "additional specifications will be
needed to clarify the semantics of the array cost mode when combined
with path metrics other than 'ane-path'"?
That is to say, I do agree that the cost mode should be applicable to
all cost metrics, but I'm not sure if the current specifications are
unambiguous about what it means to have an array of ordinal, for
example.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 08:46:08 +0800 (GMT+08:00)

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the feedback. Please see inline for the response.

Best,
Kai

&gt; -----Original Messages-----
&gt; From: "Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker" <[email-masked]>
&gt; Sent Time: 2022-03-20 01:41:31 (Sunday)
&gt; To: "The IESG" <[email-masked]>
&gt; Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
&gt; Subject: [alto] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-24: (with COMMENT)
&gt; 
&gt; Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
&gt; draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-24: No Objection
&gt; 
&gt; When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
&gt; email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
&gt; introductory paragraph, however.)
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
&gt; for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
&gt; https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-path-vector/
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; ----------------------------------------------------------------------
&gt; COMMENT:
&gt; ----------------------------------------------------------------------
&gt; 
&gt; -22 to -24 should resolve discuss
&gt; 
&gt; A huge thanks to all involved for the quick turnaround in updating this
&gt; document and getting draft-bw-alto-cost-mode in place to help
&gt; rationalize the IANA registry situation across the ALTO documents!  I'm
&gt; sorry that my turnaround time here was not so quick.
&gt; 
&gt; Fortunately, I can report that the changes address my previous Discuss
&gt; concern and comments, and I have just one additional comment, in Section 6.5.2:
&gt; 
&gt;    The cost mode "array" indicates that every cost value in the response
&gt;    body of a (Filtered) Cost Map or an Endpoint Cost Service MUST be
&gt;    interpreted as a JSON array object.  This cost mode can be applied to
&gt;    all cost metrics.
&gt; 
&gt; Would it be accurate to say that "additional specifications will be
&gt; needed to clarify the semantics of the array cost mode when combined
&gt; with path metrics other than 'ane-path'"?

It is a very good suggestion. We will integrate the proposed text at the end of
the paragraph as follows:

    While this cost mode can be applied to all cost metrics, additional
    specifications will be needed to clarify the semantics of the array cost mode
    when combined with cost metrics other than 'ane-path'.

&gt; That is to say, I do agree that the cost mode should be applicable to
&gt; all cost metrics, but I'm not sure if the current specifications are
&gt; unambiguous about what it means to have an array of ordinal, for
&gt; example.
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; 
&gt; _______________________________________________
&gt; alto mailing list
&gt; [email-masked]
&gt; https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
</[email-masked]></[email-masked]>