Hi Lars, Thanks for the comment.
Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Lars Eggert via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > Envoyé : lundi 30 mai 2022 13:42 > À : The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc : draft-ietf-alto-cost-m...@ietf.org; alto-cha...@ietf.org; > alto@ietf.org; kai...@scu.edu.cn; kai...@scu.edu.cn > Objet : Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode- > 03: (with COMMENT) > > Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-03: 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-cost-mode/ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---- > COMMENT: > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---- > > # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-03 > > CC @larseggert > > Thanks to Roni Even for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > review > (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen- > art/xlaIzXHKY1NzjJRJpuXpzKwP4rc). > > ## Comments > > ### Section 1, paragraph 4 > ``` > Additional cost modes are required for specific ALTO > deployment cases > (e.g., [I-D.ietf-alto-path-vector]). In order to allow for > such use > cases, this document relaxes the constraint imposed by the > base ALTO > specification on allowed cost modes (Section 3) and creates a > new > ALTO registry to track new cost modes (Section 4). > ``` > I second Rob's DISCUSS, i.e., it's not clear at all that current > ALTO > implementations will handle this protocol parameter now taking on > values other than "numerical" or "ordinal" without explicit > negotiation. > [Med] All what actually this draft does is to declare it legitimate to manipulate other cost modes for specific cost metrics. In practice, legacy implementations will only support one cost metric (routingcost) as per 7285. So far, such a metric can be associated with two cost types. If in the future, a document defines a new cost mode that can also be used for the "routingcost" cost metric or new metrics with additional cost modes, and a server is upgraded to support that, the procedure in 9.2 of RFC7285 will be followed by such upgraded servers to announce the new metrics. clients (including legacy ones) will take these capabilities when building forthcoming requests. Note also that legacy servers can also report errors based on unsupported cost modes as per the following from RFC7285: A request with the correct fields and types of values for the fields may specify a wrong value for a field. For example, a Filtered Cost Map request may specify a wrong value for CostMode in the "cost-type" field (Section 11.3.2.3). The server indicates such an error with the error code E_INVALID_FIELD_VALUE. For an E_INVALID_FIELD_VALUE error, the server may include an optional field named "field" in the "meta" field of the response, to indicate the field that contains the wrong value. The server may also include an optional field named "value" in the "meta" field of the response to indicate the wrong value that triggered the error. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
