On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Sebastian Kiesel <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
This sounds good to me. Depending on what we do with a registry, it may make sense to put this as one of the criteria for adding a new entry instead. > > > Thanks, > Sebastian _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
