Subject: [alto] Request for comments on two changes for RFC7285-to-be

From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 00:04:36 -0400

Dear ALTOnians,

The authors of the ALTO Protocol are finalizing the final version, to be
published as RFC 7285. We seek your comments/feedback on two non-editorial
changes.

But first, the text, XML, and comprehensive diff files are available at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc7285.txt
http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc7285.xml
http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc7285-diff.html

A summary of the key changes is listed below:
E1: the change from MUST to MAY in Section 7.1.1
E2: update from "misses" to "omits" in Section 8.5.2
E3: the addition of MUST and text addition to Section 10.8.1
E4: update from "both" to "either...or" in Section 11.2.3.6
E5: text update to Section 11.4.1.3, paragraph 1
E6: text deletion from Section 11.4.1.4. The deleted text is "In
particular, the information resource closure MUST provide the look up of
pid for every ALTO network map defined."

The AD has approved all changes except E1 and E6, which are non-editorial.

There are two reasons for E1 and E6:

(1) Make the document consistent. Specifically, the first paragraph of
Section 11.4.1 states that "An endpoint property resource provides
information about properties for individual endpoints.  It MAY be provided
by an ALTO server." Without E1 and E6, the document will imply that at
least one endpoint properties service (i.e., one to provide pid) must be
provided. Hence, one way to achieve consistency is to change the MAY in the
first para of 11.4.1 to be  MUST.

(2) However, some authors feel that we should not enforce too strong a
requirement to make deployment harder. Hence, instead of changing the
aforementioned MAY to MUST, these authors feel that it is better to make
the pid endpoint property optional. Hence, we make the two changes of E1
and E6.

Your comments and feedback will be greatly appreciated. We will wait for
one week for any feedback.

Thanks a lot.

Richard

---

From: Jan Seedorf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 08:06:42 +0000

> the pid endpoint property optional. Hence, we make the two changes of E1
I agree with this assessment and am therefore in favour of the changes from "MUST" to "MAY".

 - Jan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: alto [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Y. Richard Yang
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 6:05 AM
> To: IETF ALTO
> Cc: Megan Ferguson
> Subject: [alto] Request for comments on two changes for RFC7285-to-be
> 
> Dear ALTOnians,
> 
> published as RFC 7285. We seek your comments/feedback on two non-
> editorial changes.
> 
> E6: text deletion from Section 11.4.1.4. The deleted text is "In particular, the
> information resource closure MUST provide the look up of pid for every ALTO
> network map defined."
> 
> (1) Make the document consistent. Specifically, the first paragraph of Section
> 11.4.1 states that "An endpoint property resource provides information
> about properties for individual endpoints.  It MAY be provided by an ALTO
> server." Without E1 and E6, the document will imply that at least one
> endpoint properties service (i.e., one to provide pid) must be provided.
> Hence, one way to achieve consistency is to change the MAY in the first para
> of 11.4.1 to be  MUST.
>

---

From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 21:06:09 +0100

On 8 Aug 2014, at 09:06, Jan Seedorf <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I agree with this assessment and am therefore in favour of the changes from "MUST" to "MAY”.

+1

Ben

> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 12:37:19 +0200

Hi all,

Just to note:
The ALTO protocol is approved by the IESG and is now with the RFC 
editor. This means that there is no chance to change anything 
substantial anymore.

For instance, changing normative language is not possible anymore.

The only way to change something, is to file an errata once the RFC is 
published by the RFC editor:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php

This makes the whole conversation below moot.

Thanks,

   Martin (Transport Area Director)

Am 08.08.14 um 06:04 schrieb Y. Richard Yang:
> published as RFC 7285. We seek your comments/feedback on two
> non-editorial changes.
>
> information about properties for individual endpoints.  It MAY be
> provided by an ALTO server." Without E1 and E6, the document will imply
> that at least one endpoint properties service (i.e., one to provide pid)
> must be provided. Hence, one way to achieve consistency is to change the
> MAY in the first para of 11.4.1 to be  MUST.
>

---

From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 10:32:33 -0400

Hi Martin,

Following the procedure is fair. Then how about the following clarification
change in the current doc:

- Changes the the first paragraph of Section 11.4.1  "An endpoint property
resource provides information about properties for individual endpoints.
 It MAY be provided by an ALTO server."

to

"An endpoint property resource provides information about properties for
individual endpoints.  An ALTO server MAY provide other endpoint
properties, except the "pid" endpoint property, which MUST be provided per
the requirements specified in Section 7.1.1 and 11.4.1.4"

Richard

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 6:37 AM, Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Just to note:
> The ALTO protocol is approved by the IESG and is now with the RFC editor.
> This means that there is no chance to change anything substantial anymore.
>

-- 
-- 
 =====================================
| Y. Richard Yang <[email-masked]>   |
| Professor of Computer Science       |
| http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/        |
 =====================================

---

From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 10:36:31 -0400

Sent too quickly. A slight wordsmith of English. Please see below.

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Y. Richard Yang <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> Following the procedure is fair. Then how about the following
> clarification change in the current doc:
>
> - Changes the the first paragraph of Section 11.4.1  "An endpoint
> property resource provides information about properties for individual
> endpoints.  It MAY be provided by an ALTO server."
>
> to
>
"An endpoint property resource provides information about properties for
individual endpoints.  An ALTO server MUST provide the "pid" endpoint
property, as required by the requirements specified in Section 7.1.1 and
Section 11.4.1.4. It  MAY provide other endpoint properties."

Richard

---

From: Sebastian Kiesel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 21:15:22 +0200

Richard,
all,

a less intrusive clarification would be:

"An endpoint property resource provides information about properties for
individual endpoints.  In addition to the "pid" endpoint property (see
Sections 7.1.1 and 11.4.1.4), further endpoint properties MAY be
provided by an ALTO server."

what do you think?

Thanks
Sebastian

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:32:24 -0500

> provided by an ALTO server."

I looked at this proposal with Richard, and talked about it with Martin. 
It doesn't have the conflict with the "pid" MUST that's in the approved 
text, and doesn't change normative behavior in a way that would surprise 
anyone who reviewed the document. Nice work.

I haven't seen any response on this mailing list, so I'm asking Richard 
to provide this text to the RFC Editor to close what I believe is the 
last AUTH48 issue on ALTO's premier specification.

Thanks for working through this.

Spencer

---

From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:20:27 -0400

Hi Spencer, all,

Thank for so much for working together on solving this last AUTH48
technical problem!

Richard

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Spencer Dawkins <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I haven't seen any response on this mailing list, so I'm asking Richard to
> provide this text to the RFC Editor to close what I believe is the last
> AUTH48 issue on ALTO's premier specification.
>