Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2022-05-13
Requested 2022-04-29
Authors Mohamed Boucadair , Qin Wu
I-D last updated 2022-05-11
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Roni Even (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -02 by Jaime Jimenez (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Stephen Farrell (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jaime Jimenez
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 05)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2022-05-11
Dear all,

I am the assigned reviewer for the Applications and Real Time Area Review Team

Nits/editorial comments:

One minor comment is that since this document sets a registry with a limited
set of cost-modes (for now "numerical" and "ordinal") that require IANA
registration anyways, why not assign some 8-bit codes ("0x0, 0x1") to save
space on the wire.? Probably this has already been discussed somewhere in the
WG, so I apologize if I am way off on this.

Another minor comment is that RFC7285 defines variations of a JSON they use in
now few different locations in the document, section 10.1, section 10.6,
section 10.8.2 and after this document is approved also on section 10.5. To
make transparent to the that they are different I would consider writing a line
on section 3.2 saying that neither the '.' separator nor the the at sign ('@')
are allowed.

There is an extra space on 3.2: U+0041 -U+005A
Should be: U+0041-U+005A

There is a typo on 3.2: ('_', +005F)
Should be: ('_', U+005F)