I have review draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-09 and don’t have any issues except some minor suggestions and nits.
Sec 1 Introduction: 1. If by using “functionalities” below is meant to reference the two RFC (RFC 7975 & RFC 8008), semantically, it may be better to state that the request routing interface is covered in two separate RFCs and reference the two RFC by name and number. a. Correspondingly, the request routing interface is broadly divided into two functionalities: (1) CDNI Footprint & Capabilities Advertisement interface (FCI), and (2) CDNI Request Routing Redirection interface (RI). 2. (replace is -> are) a. A protocol to transport and update such objects between a uCDN and a dCDN, however, is not defined 3. (delete “some”) b. In this way, a uCDN can effectively fetch capabilities of some footprints in which it is interested 4. (add “as defined” instead of “defined” in two places in the sentence starting as below) c. Throughout this document, we use the terminologies for CDNI defined… Section 2.1: 5. (replace “For a detailed discussions” with “For detailed information…” ) d. For a detailed discussion, the reader is referred to the RFCs. 6. Remove extra sub bullet at the end of section 2.1 since there is no text (check the document for other instances of bullet but no text). Section 2.2: 7. Remove reference to I-D.jenkins-alto-cdn-use-cases 8. Replace (“Identifications -> Identification): Security: Identifications between uCDNs and dCDNs are extremely important 9. Can an example be added of what unexpected cases authors envision? a. Error-handling: The ALTO protocol has undergone extensive revisions in order to provide sophisticated error-handling, in particular regarding unexpected cases Section 6: 10. Re-word (“First, we describe how to represent”) a. We firstly describe how to represent 11. Replace (“And then” with “Second”) Section 8: 12. Add a colon after follows a. included as follows. 13. Needs some rewording for the sentence below: a. For availability of ALTO services, an attacker may get the potential huge full CDNI Thanks Sanjay From: CDNi [mailto:cdni-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vijay Gurbani Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:08 AM To: IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>; c...@ietf.org Subject: [E] [CDNi] WGLC for draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-09 All: Jan and I will like to start WGLC for draft-ietf-cdni-request-routing-alto-09. The WGLC period will run from Mon, Feb 3 2020 to Wed, Feb 19 2020. This email is also being cross-posted to the CDNI working group. We will like to have one WG list member from ALTO and one WG list member from CDNI review this draft in depth. Please send Jan and me an email if you are willing review the draft as part of WGLC. In addition, we will like general reviews of the draft from both ALTO and CDNI WGs. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
