Subject: [alto] review for draft-deng-alto-p2p-ext-07

From: Qiao Xiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 20:33:04 -0500

Hi All,

The following are my review for the draft-deng-alto-p2p-ext-07 drafts.

Sec 3, 3rd paragraph: "a end"->"an end"

Sec 3.1, the "Non-redundancy" guideline and the later-on "how to jutfity
non-redundancy" is not equivalent... I feel that the guideline is weaker
than the justification. I believe we should make them consistent/equivalent

Sec 3.3., 3rd paragraph: "the the"->"the"
Sec 4.1.1, the last paragraph, dc-location is a two-element object, not a
four-element object.
Sec 4.2.1, last sentence in paragraph 1: "it's"->it is.

Sec 4.2.2, I understand the need for differentiate electricity-supplied and
battery-supplied end point. In the meantime, I suggest we change the set
for content attribute to

"content": ["brown electricity", "renewable electricity", "batter"]

The reason is because nowadays more and more service providers are shifting
their workload to renewable-energy powered data centers, including Apple,
Google and etc. Compared with end points powered by brown energy, i.e.,
coal, the end points powered by renewable electricity may be more
economically efficient, and hence should be more preferable in supporting
more traffic.

Sec 4.4.1, regarding the "volume-limited" property, if we only use a
boolean value to indicate if an end point has such a limitation, how can
the server or the application decides how much traffic should be assigned
to this endpoint, 50MB, 500MB, 10GB or other values? Therefore we should
use a rank content for this property. Rank can be something like this:

1: 10-50MB, 2: 50-500MB, 3: 500-1000MB and etc.

Above is my current thought. I will review other drafts later. Thanks.

Best
Qiao

-- 
Qiao Xiang
Postdoctoral Fellow,
Department of Computer Science,
Yale University