Dear Qiushi, Thanks for the feedback. Please see below.
On Jul 12, 2013 8:26 AM, "Qiushi Wang" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear authors, > > I'm a Ph.D. student in FU-Berlin. I have taken an IETF course in my > university since May. This course introduces us some basic information > about the working groups. I choose Alto as my working group to follow, > because it has some relations with my research of offloading. I have read > the document of draft-ietf-alto-protocol-16, and followed the discussion > in the mailing list for two months. Obviously, this draft is clearly > written and has been polished quite well. I know it is very close to be an > RFC and the new version-17 will be available on Monday. If you still have > some time and interesting, please consider my two comments about this > draft. > > 1. > ------------ > It mentioned several times "third-party" in this document, but the > meanings in each place are not the same. As in the abstract, “and third > parties could also operate an ALTO service”, it's considered here that the > third party is one of the providers. But in section 1.2.2, “By using ALTO > information, applications can reduce the reliance on obtaining network > information through third-party databases”, and in section 3.2, “a > third-party” in the end of the second paragraph, they have different > meanings with each other, also with that in the abstract. So a clear > description about each third-party make readers more easy to understand. > Good consistency check. The basic meaning of third-party is that it it neither the owner of the network infrastructure nor the app. Assume that the owner of the network infrasturce is A. But it is B who provides ALTO network information for A's network. There can be multiple scenarios. One example is that B is officially delegated by A to provide ALTO service for A. This is not surprising in that many networks choose to delegate the management to others. One can imagine that there can be cases where B is not delegated by A. As an example, if a commercial database provider decides to use ALTO as the mechnism to provide its collected information about network A, it cannot a potential deployment scenario. All preceding will have its security and privacy implications. It is a good suggestion from you to be more careful. we will use more explicit words in the revision. > 2. > ------------ > Section 1.2.2 > > It's not obvious that the measurement overhead can be reduced by > conducting only fine-tuning or fault-tolerant measurement. It's better to > list the parts of the overhead which can be removed. To avoid the details and the complexity that follows, we can remove the word fine-tuning and say only that the application can use ALTO info about latency and bandwidth, if provided, and hence no need to measure the latency or bandwidth itself. How does this sound? Richard > > ------------ > > Thanks a lot for your work. > > Best wishes, > Qiushi Wang > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
