Subject: [alto] Shepherd Write-up for draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost

From: Jan Seedorf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:27:12 +0100

Dear all,

I just uploaded the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost to 
the datatracker (fyi below).

Authors: you still need to fix one downward ref (see below). Let me know 
when you intend to do this. Once this is done, I will set the status to 
"submit to IESG".

  - Jan

*1. Summary*

Jan Seedorf is the document shepherd for draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost. 
Mirja Kühlewind is the responsible Area Director.

The document itself has a long history, having started as a -00 document 
in the ALTO WG as an individual draft in October 2010 (author: Sabine 
Randriamasy).It transitioned to a WG document in May 2015 (after the 
ALTO WG had been re-chartered to work on extensions to the original ALTO 
protocol as specified in RFC 7285) (authors: Sabine Randriamasy, Wendy 
Roome, Nico Schwan).

The ALTO protocol as specified in RFC 7285 allows to only query results 
for one single ALTO cost metric in a given ALTO request. 
draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost defines a “new service that allows a client 
to retrieve several cost metrics with one request, which is considerably 
moreefficient” [draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost-04]. This is clearly a very 
useful extension of the ALTO protocol and covered in the current ALTO 
charter.

The working group is targeting this document as Standards Track, which 
is appropriate as the document extends the ALTO protocol, specifying new 
formats for allowed client requests (in JSON).

*2. Review and Consensus*

The document has been presented at multiple IETF meetings and discussed 
on the mailing list. It is well-known in the ALTO WG and there is clear 
consensus to standardise the proposed ALTO extension. A WGLC was issued 
on July 4, 2016.During this WGLC a detailed review has been produced by 
Xin Wang, extensive additional comments were provided by Richard Yang 
and Hans Seidel. The comments raised have been addressed in the -03 
version of draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost. Last outstanding comments have 
been finally addressed in the latest -04 (September 2016) and -05 
versions (February 2017).

In summary, there is clear support and consensus for 
draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost in the ALTO WG, and it provides a very useful 
extension to the base ALTO protocol. A WGLC has successfully been 
passed, and extensive reviews were provided by various members of the WG 
and have all been addressed.

*3. Intellectual Property*

The shepherd confirms that each author has stated to him that to the 
best of his/her (i.e. the author’s) knowledge, all IPR related to this 
document has been disclosed.

There have been two IPR disclosures on this document (see 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2615/ and 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1628/). Both these IPR disclosures have 
been posted on the ALTO mailing list. There was no discussion on these 
IPR statements.

*4. Other Points*

RFC2119 is listed as a normative reference but not listed in the DOWNREF 
Registry 
(http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry) 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry%29>. 
The authors have been notified and will fix this issue.

This document does not introduce any IANA considerations and does not 
introduce any privacy or security issues that are not already present in 
the ALTO protocol

---

From: Jan Seedorf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:48:01 +0100

The downward ref issue has been clarified (thanks to Sabine for quick 
and proper checking), so I removed the sentence "RFC2119 is listed as a 
normative reference but not listed in the DOWNREF Registry" from the 
write-up. The document is now in state "Submitted to IESG for Publication".

  - Jan

On 22/02/2017 18:27, Jan Seedorf wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I just uploaded the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost 
> to the datatracker (fyi below).
>
> Authors: you still need to fix one downward ref (see below). Let me 
> know when you intend to do this. Once this is done, I will set the 
> status to "submit to IESG".
>
>  - Jan
>
>
> *1. Summary*
>
> The document itself has a long history, having started as a -00 
> document in the ALTO WG as an individual draft in October 2010 
> (author: Sabine Randriamasy).It transitioned to a WG document in May 
> 2015 (after the ALTO WG had been re-chartered to work on extensions to 
> the original ALTO protocol as specified in RFC 7285) (authors: Sabine 
> Randriamasy, Wendy Roome, Nico Schwan).
>
> The ALTO protocol as specified in RFC 7285 allows to only query 
> results for one single ALTO cost metric in a given ALTO request. 
> to retrieve several cost metrics with one request, which is 
> considerably moreefficient” [draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost-04]. This is 
> clearly a very useful extension of the ALTO protocol and covered in 
> the current ALTO charter.
>
> is appropriate as the document extends the ALTO protocol, specifying 
> new formats for allowed client requests (in JSON).
>
>
> The document has been presented at multiple IETF meetings and 
> discussed on the mailing list. It is well-known in the ALTO WG and 
> there is clear consensus to standardise the proposed ALTO extension. A 
> WGLC was issued on July 4, 2016.During this WGLC a detailed review has 
> been produced by Xin Wang, extensive additional comments were provided 
> by Richard Yang and Hans Seidel. The comments raised have been 
> addressed in the -03 version of draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost. Last 
> outstanding comments have been finally addressed in the latest -04 
> (September 2016) and -05 versions (February 2017).
>
> draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost in the ALTO WG, and it provides a very 
> useful extension to the base ALTO protocol. A WGLC has successfully 
> been passed, and extensive reviews were provided by various members of 
> the WG and have all been addressed.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1628/). Both these IPR disclosures 
> have been posted on the ALTO mailing list. There was no discussion on 
> these IPR statements.
>
> *4. Other Points*
>
> RFC2119 is listed as a normative reference but not listed in the 
> DOWNREF Registry 
> introduce any privacy or security issues that are not already present 
> in the ALTO protocol
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto