Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-18
review-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-18-opsdir-lc-bradner-2021-08-25-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 24)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2021-08-26
Requested 2021-08-12
Authors Wendy Roome , Sabine Randriamasy , Y. Richard Yang , Jingxuan Zhang , Kai Gao
I-D last updated 2021-08-25
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -18 by Scott O. Bradner (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -18 by Spencer Dawkins (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -18 by Paul Wouters (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Scott O. Bradner
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/J3QVyheWrAzMIH3316JXfgo21xc
Reviewed revision 18 (document currently at 24)
Result Ready
Completed 2021-08-25
review-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-18-opsdir-lc-bradner-2021-08-25-00
This is an OPD-DIR review of ALTO Extension: Entity Property Maps
(draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new)

review conclusion: Ready with questions

This document describes extensions to the ALTO protocol to support additional
functionality, as such this document describes technology that will make
operating a network better (not necessary easier since there is more to do)

I did not find any particular operational issues issues

two questions though
1/ with language like the following
“this document specifies a protocol extension for defining and retrieving ALTO
properties” and “The concept of an ALTO Entity generalizes the concept of an
ALTO Endpoint defined in Section 2.1 of [RFC7285].”

I would have assumed that the new RFC would update RFC 7285 but the header of
the ID does not say that it updates anything - if this has already been
discussed and decided then fine but it sure looks like an update to me

2/ section 12.2 describes the "ALTO Entity Domain Registry" and specifically
says that additions to the registry require "IETF Review" but section 12.3,
which describes the "ALTO Entity Type Registry" and says what info must be
included in any request to add items to the registry but does not say what, if
any review is needed - leaving it open ended seems wrong to me

Scott