Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-17

Request Review of draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 22)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2021-11-26
Requested 2021-11-09
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Jan Seedorf , Y. Richard Yang , Kevin J. Ma , Jon Peterson , Jingxuan Zhang
I-D last updated 2021-11-26
Completed reviews Artart Last Call review of -16 by Thomas Fossati (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -16 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -17 by Klaas Wierenga (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -17 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 17 (document currently at 22)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2021-11-26
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-17. These comments were written
primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and
shepherd should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from
any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call
comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO

The following are issues I found with this document that SHOULD be corrected
before publication and some comments:

   I am not particularly familiar with the technology in this draft os I may
   have missed things.

   Abstract: I believe it should say "the exact protocol is not specified"
   adding "not".

   Section 3.7.1: The second paragraph of this section is one very long
   sentence that I found confusing and which may be inconsistent. Perhaps a
   structured list would be better than simple text.

   Section Seems a bit imprecise. I suggest adding at the end "as a
   decimal number without leading zeros".

   I was favorably impressed by the relatively complete information included
   for the Authors in the Authors' Addresses Section. I wish more drafts did

The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements)
with the document:

   PID should be expanded on first use. Although, as far as I can see, other
   acronyms are appropriately expanded on first use. the document might benefit
   from a terminology section (maybe 1.1 or 2.3) as not everyone may read the
   document sequentially and remember all the expansions.

   Section 2.2, 2nd *'ed paragraph, "ALTO maps can be signed" adding "be".

   Section 3.6: I don't think the following text is needed and it could be
   deleted. It merely expresses the default that later IETF documents can
   modify earlier IETF documents.
                                                 There may be other
      documents extending BaseAdvertisementObject and additional CDNI
      capabilities.  They are outside the scope of this document.  To
      support them, future documents can extend the specification defined
      in this document.

   Section 3.7.1:  /// -> //

   Section 6.2.1: "to define" -> "defining"

   Section 10: It is common to include the same information for Contributors as
   is included for Authors in the Authors' Addresses section but that has not
   been done.

   There are a few addition suggestions that I will send directly to the

   Really trivial: when you have
     "xyz": stuff
for various values of xyz and stuff, there is no consistency in whether or not
there is a space before the colon.