Subject: [alto] Proto writeup for cost-calendar

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:22:32 -0500

All: Here is the proto-writeup for cost-calendar.

There are a couple of problems with the draft that will require a new
version.  Primary among them is the lack of a security consideration
section.  I have asked the authors to add one, and as soon as the new
version becomes available, I will request that the reviewers named in
the proto writeup please review the security consideration section.

Here is the proto writeup.

ALTO Cost Calendar
draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-04
Shepherd: Vijay K. Gurbani <[email-masked]>

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Vijay K. Gurbani. The responsible Area Director is
Mirja Kuehlwind.

This document is an extension to the base ALTO protocol (RFC 7785).  It
extends the ALTO cost information service such that applications decide
not only 'where' to connect, but also 'when'.  This is useful for
applications
that need to perform bulk data transfer and would like to schedule these
transfers during an off-peak hour, for example.

This document is targeted as a Standards Track document (Proposed Standard).
This designation is appropriate as the document contains normative behaviour
and message formats that should be adhered to by the communicating entities
in order to realize the extension.

2. Review and Consensus

Cost calendar is a well-know extension within the working group, having been
first presented as an individual document on Jul 4, 2014 (individual -00
version).  It was subsequently adopted as WG item on Jul 28, 2016.

The work has been reviewed by at least four key WG members in the past.
Version -01 was reviewed on Jun 29, 2017 by Yichen Qian and Li Geng; version
-02 was reviewed by Dawn Chen on Jul 12, 2017 and by Jensen Zhang on Dec 02,
2017.  A WGLC was held on Feb 22, 2018.

There is one known implementation, authored by the editor of the draft.
The work has been discussed extensively in the WG over the years, and the
WG feels that the document is ready to be moved out of the group and into
IESG.

3. Intellectual Property

3/5 of the author team has confirmed conformance with BCP 78/79 with the
shepherd.  The shepherd is waiting for the remaining 2/5.

There are no IPR disclosures on the document.

4. Other Points

<Need to put in Security Consideration Section>
<Attend to IDNITS output>

Cheers,

- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani / [email-masked]
Network Data Science, Nokia Networks
Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq