Subject: [alto] Some questions for alto-cdni-request-routing

From: Shawn Lin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 11:27:02 +0800

Dear authors of  draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-00 and ALTOers,

Using ALTO to provide guidelines on the FCI protocol is really a good
idea since ATLO can provide resources information of network as well as
endpoints by an elegant way.

1. I found that there are *two sections (3.3.2 and 3.3.3) left blank *in
this draft, have they be solved yet?

2. It seems that *how to use ALTO network map* is not described in this
draft.

I posted one example and its source for each of them, and hope we can refresh
the current progress and try to move it forward.

*3.3.2.  Incremental FCI Update Example*

source:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-alto-cdni-footprint-and-capabilities-advertisements-using-alto/

POST /updates/fci HTTP/1.1

Host: fcialtoupdate.example.com

Accept: text/event-stream,application/alto-error+json Content-Type:
application/alto-updatestreamparams+json Content-Length: ###

{ "add": {

    "my-fci-stream": {

        "resource-id": "my-fci-map"

    }

}

HTTP/1.1 200 OK

Connection: keep-alive

Content-Type: text/event-stream

event: application/alto-updatestreamcontrol+json

data: {"control-uri": "
http://fcialtocu.example.com/updates/streams/3141592653589"}

event: application/cdni,my-fci-stream

data: { ... full cdni message ... }

event: application/merge-patch+json,my-fci-stream

data: { ... Merge patch update of cdni objects ... }

event: application/json-patch+json,my-fci-stream

data: { ... JSON patch update of cdni objects, e.g., footprints entries ...
}

*3.3.3.  FCI Using ALTO Network Map Example*

source: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ma-cdni-capabilities-09#section-5

networkmap:

    GET /networkmap HTTP/1.1

    Host: http://alto.example.com/fcifootprint001

    Accept: application/alto-networkmap+json,application/alto-error+json

    HTTP/1.1 200 OK

    Content-Length: 319

    Content-Type: application/alto-networkmap+json

    {

      "meta" : {

        "vtag": [

          {"resource-id": "my-eu-netmap",

           "tag": "1266506139"

          }

        ]

      },

      "network-map" : {

        "south-france" : {

          "ipv4" : [ "192.0.2.0/24", "198.51.100.0/25" ]

        },

        "germany" : {

          "ipv4" : [ "192.0.3.0/24"]

        }

      }

    }

fcimap:

      GET /fcimap HTTP/1.1

      Host: alto.example.com

      Accept: application/alto-fcimap+json,application/alto-error+json

      HTTP/1.1 200 OK

      Content-Length: 618

      Content-Type: application/alto-fcimap+json

      {

        "meta" : {

        },

        "fcimap": {

          "capabilities": [

            { "capability-type": "FCI.DeliveryProtocol",

              "capability-value": [

                "http1.1"

              ]

            },

            { "capability-type": "FCI.DeliveryProtocol",

              "capability-value": [

              "values": [

                "https1.1"

              ],

              "footprints": [

                { "footprint-type": "altonetworkmap",

                  "footprint-value": [

*                    "http://alto.example.com/fcifootprint001
<http://alto.example.com/fcifootprint001>",*

*                    "germany",*

*                    "south-france"*

                  ]

                }

              ]

            }

          ]

        }

      }

One suggestion about the "footprint-value": although the meaning of each
element in "footprint-value" list is described in
draft-ma-cdni-capabilities-09, it may be better to use objects in
"footprint-value" list in some circumstances. For example, this may be more
human readable.

"footprint-value": [

  {"uri": *"http://alto.example.com/fcifootprint001
<http://alto.example.com/fcifootprint001>*"},

  {"country":"*germany*"},

  {"coutry":"*south-france*"}

]

Bests,

X. Shawn Lin

---

From: Shenshen Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 18:13:49 +0800

Dear ALTO working group,

Here is my review of draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-00.  Most of
them are minor issues.
Your feedback and comments are highly appreciated.

1. IANA consideration is missing.

2. In page 3, para "The main purpose ..."

   I prefer to define uCDN by appending "(uCDN)" to "Upstream CDN" since
the uCDN (and dCDN) are used without definition in para "CDNI FCI: ...".
Also, the "upstream CDN" appears in the following content several times,
which should be unified into "uCDN".

3. In page 6, para "Originally, ..."

   In the last quote, I prefer to use "actual algorithm ..." following the
original text in [RFC6707].

4. In page 6, para "Security: ..."

   A period is missing in the end.

5. In page 8, sec "3.1.3. Data Information"

   "a JSON object defined by [RFC8008]" seems obscure.  I guess it refers
to "a Capability Advertisement Object".

6. In page 8, sec "3.1.2", "3.1.3", "3.2"

   "[RFC7285] (Section 10.3.)" should be changed into "Section 10.3 of
[RFC7285]", otherwise this link doesn't work.  "(Section 8.4.)", "(Section
8.5.)" have the same problem.

Regards,
Shenshen

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Shawn Lin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> source: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-
> 99-alto-cdni-footprint-and-capabilities-advertisements-using-alto/
>
>
> data: {"control-uri": "http://fcialtocu.example.com/
> updates/streams/3141592653589"}
>
>
> data: { ... JSON patch update of cdni objects, e.g., footprints entries
> ... }
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>
>