Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-21: Discuss
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/blog/handling-iesg-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-performance-metrics/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work on this document, and for addressing my previous DISCUSS points. I noticed two additional JSON issue, easy to fix, reported below. Many thanks to Christian Amsüss for his review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/owYhcoFnl1vEipZ2D62cWiiE-LA/ , and thanks to the authors for addressing it. As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion; I really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be convinced otherwise. Francesca 1. ----- Section 4.4.3 { "cost-type" { "cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "bw-utilized"}, "endpoints": { "srcs": [ "ipv4 : 192.0.2.2" ], "dsts": [ "ipv4:192.0.2.89", "ipv4:198.51.100.34" ] } } FP: JSON doesn't validate: missing ":" after "cost-type". 2. ----- Section 4.3.3. { "cost-type" { "cost-mode": "numerical", "cost-metric": "bw-available"}, "endpoints": { "srcs": [ "ipv4 : 192.0.2.2" ], "dsts": [ "ipv4:192.0.2.89", "ipv4:198.51.100.34" ] } } FP: JSON doesn't validate: missing ":" after "cost-type". (Minor note - is there a reason why the "srcs" address has whitespaces while other addresses don't? 3 occurrences in the text). _______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
