Subject: [alto] Piecewise review of draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-01 - Section 3 Use Case

From: "Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:36:07 +0000

Hello authors of PV extension,

Please find below my review of draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-01, covering section 3. I prefer to send revisions covering groups of sections rather than a too long e-mail covering the whole document. Next parts will follow. The general comments on the document may also be incremented in upcoming revision parts.

For the caption, in sentences: "... bla bla  ...", text between "++ ++", "-- --" means respectively ++added text++ and --deleted text--

Thanks,
Sabine

========================================================
DETAILED COMMENTS - section 3
========================================================

----------------
3. Use Case:...
----------------
The example values of link capacity and use case conclusions are hard to understand when one assumes that path capacity = MIN(link capacity) over the links of the path.

--- Para 1
- sentence 1-2: I propose to re-phrase as follows: "Once routing has been configured in the network, application-layer traffic optimization may want to schedule traffic among application-layer paths."

--- Para 4 (after fig.2)
- sentence 1: I propose to re-phrase as follows: "Consider an application overlay (e.g., a large data analysis system) which ++ wants ++ to schedule the traffic on two source-destination flows, say eh1 -> eh2 and eh1 -> eh4.".

--- Para 6
- sentence 2: can be shortened to "In particular --, it needs to provide the following new capabilities--:"
- item 2: "The network needs to provide the necessary abstraction to hide the real topology -- information as possible-- ++ while providing enough information to applications ++."

--- Para 7
- "The path-vector extension defined in this document --will satisfy all the-- ++ addresses these ++ requirements."