Dear Ingmar: This is great information, thanks. Did you implement both JSON patch and JSON merge patch? Thanks, - vijay
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 2:50 PM Ingmar Poese <ing...@inet.tu-berlin.de> wrote: > Hi Danny, > > We (BENOCS) have implemented the Alto SSE, but are lacking a partner to > speak it to in production scale. > > In our testing environment it seems to work fine (even with production > data). > > I was unable to attend Singapore, but will be available in vancouver (and > possibly madrid) to chat/present the research. > > Best, > Ingmar > > Am 6. Jan. 2020, 19:56, um 19:56, Danny Alex Lachos Perez < > dlachos...@gmail.com> schrieb: > >Hello Vijay, > >Happy new year!!! > > > >Just a quick comment to your question about implementations of ALTO-SSE > > > >There is a related work "Steering Hyper-Giants’ Traffic at Scale" [0] > >where > >ALTO is used as a northbound interface in a *real operational > >environment > >at scale*. > >The authors mention the SSE extension (but I am not sure if this > >extension > >was also tested). > > > >Best regards, > > > >Danny Lachos > > > >[0] > >https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/h7QJRu47NbTvfcnW2fveFqCBRdw > > > >On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 4:32 PM Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurb...@gmail.com> > >wrote: > > > >> All: Happy new year. > >> > >> In preparation of moving alto-incr-update-sse ahead, I have performed > >a > >> chair review of the work. Overall, the document is well written, > >mature, > >> and considers various design tradeoffs. This is fairly mature work, > >and we > >> should move it out of the WG following the resolution to the review > >below > >> and an additional review by Jensen Zhang [1]. > >> > >> --- Begin chair review > >> > >> I am curious --- are there any known implementations of alto-sse? > >> > >> MAJOR > >> -S10.1: This is an important discussion. However, this discussion is > >> written primarily from a viewpoint of an ALTO client, but if I > >understand > >> it correctly, it should be written from the viewpoint of an ALTO > >stream > >> server since it is the stream server that is generating the event > >since > >> that is the source that should be told to behave conservatively. > >Should > >> this section be re-written to exhort the stream server to send out > >full > >> cost maps in chunked format, where each chunk is at most 2,000 > >octets? > >> That way, the clients are not overwhelmed. Thoughts? > >> > >> MINOR > >> S3: It is rather unfortunate that one of the services is named > >“Stream > >> Control Service” as this may be conflated by the uninitiated reader > >with > >> the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) service, a transport > >layer > >> protocol. Clearly, that is not the intent here. However, I am > >loathe to > >> suggest a new naming scheme this late in the document publication > >phase, so > >> perhaps the best we can do now is to add a note explicitly > >disassociating > >> Stream Control Service of ALTO from SCTP. Perhaps something like: > >s/from > >> the update stream./from the update stream. (Note that the Stream > >Control > >> Service in ALTO has no association with the similarly named Stream > >Control > >> Transmission Protocol [RFC4960].)/ > >> > >> S4: The phrase “Using existing techniques wherever possible,” implies > >that > >> you have used other, perhaps new techniques at other places. Is that > >the > >> case? If so, please enumerate the new techniques; if not, perhaps > >reword > >> as s/Using existing techniques wherever possible,/Using existing > >> techniques,/ > >> > >> -S4.2.1: “This document adopts the JSON merge patch message format to > >> encode incremental changes, but uses a different transport > >mechanism.” ==> > >> Not sure how to interpret this. Since alto-sse uses the HTTP PATCH > >method > >> to affect incremental updates, it uses the same “transport mechanism” > >> (i.e., TLS). Perhaps you meant “...., but uses a different HTTP > >method, > >> i.e., it uses POST instead of PATCH (details in Section 5).”? > >> > >> -S4.2.1, page 10: s/, and (3) assigns a new tag to the network map:/, > >(3) > >> leaves “PID3” unmodified, and (4) assigns a new tag to the network > >map:/ > >> > >> -S6.1: Is there some magic about the numbers “1” and “2” assigned to > >> substream IDs? In other words, must substream IDs begin with 1 and > >> monotonically increase? If so, state that. If not, then state that > >> substream IDs must begin with a random number between [1, 10] and > >> monotonically increase from there on for each new substream. That > >is, if > >> the first substream ID is 6, then subsequent substream IDs from the > >client > >> should monotonically increase from this starting value. (I will let > >the > >> protocol designers come up with the exact text to impart this.) > >> > >> NITS > >> -S5, page 16: s/this design allows/this document allows/ > >> (Overworked use of “design”: “...flexible protocol design, this > >design…”). > >> > >> -S10.1: s/single character array./character array./ > >> > >> -S10.1: s/client computer/client/ > >> > >> --- End of chair review > >> > >> Additionally, the work has also been reviewed by Jensen [1]. > >> > >> Authors, please attend to the comments indicated in this review and > >> Jensen's review and release a new version in order to move the work > >forward. > >> > >> [1] > >https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/C9_tS44bz7kq84Z3cpZZkMeUDFc > >> > >> Thank you. > >> > >> - vijay > >> _______________________________________________ > >> alto mailing list > >> alto@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto > >> > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >alto mailing list > >alto@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto > >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
