Hi Rich, I need some more time to comment on the other issues, but let me write about one thing before I forget it again :)
> > 1.) add a clarification in section 7.5.3.1 that the extension > > documents not only have to define new Address Types but also > > an appropriate mapping mechansim. > > At least in the initial discussions of ALTO, there was mention about > using these for addresses other than IP addresses, such as e.164 > numbers. That said, I haven't seen any concrete use cases for > anything other than IP addresses or things that can map to IP > addresses. > > I don't intend to start a debate on the requirements document at this > stage, but I'm a bit hesitant to say that extensions MUST do this. I > completely agree that those proposing extensions should be thinking > about this, but tend to think that MUST is too strong. How about > extending 7.5.3.1 to state "extension documents defining a new Address > Type SHOULD also document a mechanism to map addresses of the new type > to IPv4 and/or IPv6 addresses prefixes." I propose to write in 7.5.3.1: "Extension documents may define additional Address Types and the corresponding mechanisms to map these adresses from/to IPv4/IPv6 addresses/prefixes." That way you neither have to contradict nor reinforce the requirements document. Thanks, Sebastian _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
