Shepherd writeup
rfc8896-21

ALTO Cost Calendar
draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-15
Shepherd: Vijay K. Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Vijay K. Gurbani. The responsible Area Director is
Mirja Kuehlewind.

This document is an extension to the base ALTO protocol (RFC 7785).  It 
extends the ALTO cost information service such that applications decide 
not only 'where' to connect, but also 'when'.  This is useful for applications
that need to perform bulk data transfer and would like to schedule these
transfers during an off-peak hour, for example.

This document is targeted as a Standards Track document (Proposed Standard).
This designation is appropriate as the document contains normative behaviour
and message formats that should be adhered to by the communicating entities
in order to realize the extension.

2. Review and Consensus

Cost calendar is a well-know extension within the working group, having been
first presented as an individual document on Jul 4, 2014 (individual -00
version).  It was subsequently adopted as WG item on Jul 28, 2016.

The work has been reviewed by at least four key WG members in the past.  Version
-01 was reviewed on Jun 29, 2017 by Yichen Qian and Li Geng; version -02 was
reviewed by Dawn Chen on Jul 12, 2017 and by Jensen Zhang on Dec 02, 2017.  A
WGLC was held on Feb 22, 2018.

Post WGLC, version -06 of the document added a beefed up Security Consideration
and a new Operations Consideration section to the draft.  Key members of the WG
(Dawn Chen and Jensen Zhang) reviewed these two sections of the draft.

The draft was presented to the IESG and balloted on 2018-12-04.  This balloting
resulted in a number of COMMENT and two DISCUSS that brought the draft back to
the WG [1].  The comments have all been addressed to the satisfaction of the
ADs, as have the DISCUSSes as part of a second WGLC.  During the second WGLC,
Kai Gao, and Jensen Zhang provided a WGLC review.  I did a shepherd's review as
well.  The WG considers the draft to be ready to move to IESG.

There is one known implementation, authored by the editor of the draft.
The work has been discussed extensively in the WG over the years, and the
WG feels that the document is ready to be moved out of the group and into
IESG.

3. Intellectual Property

The entire author team has confirmed conformance with BCP 78/79 with the
shepherd.  

4. Other Points
1. idnits reports two comments on obsolete references; the authors have been
notified and will prefer to fix that during AUTH48.
2. All of the JSON code in the draft has been checked for syntax by the author
team. 

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/e__lHfY4j4tS6FTANp3Lr_R6vp0

Back