Dear Jensen, Thanks a lot for the comment. Please see below.
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Jensen Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'd like to resume the discussion about the unified property. From the > discussion [0] between Wendy and Richard, the argument is about: 1) the > hierarchy and inheritance issue. 2) the consistency of the same property > across domains. Here I have some more considerations about this topic. > > 1. The hierarchical data scheme. The current data scheme is like {Entity > -> {PropertyType -> PropertyValue}}. I'm thinking about if it is possible > to define a more general scheme. Wendy proposed a new approach about > unified cost scheme [1]. And the main argument I remembered is that this > approach is not downward compatible. I do not also want to deprecate the > legacy ALTO services. But why not propose this approach as an extension of > the property map? > Let me clarify. Do you mean the scheme of unifying everything into a mapping of key to value, e.g, > Cost Map: (pid, pid) => value > Endpoint Costs: (addr, addr) => value > Endpoint Props: (addr, prop-name) => value > MultiCost Map: (pid, pid, cost-type) => value > MultiCost Calendar Map: (pid, pid, date-range, cost-type) > => value > Network Map: (cidr) => pid I see that this is a more general design but at the same time it helps to first solve all of the remaining chartered items, before further extension. Agree? > > 2. More general query filter. The unified-prop draft proposes the filtered > property service whose filter is a set of entities. Why not allow the > client to query the property map by setting the constraints of property > values (like constraints in filtered cost map)? Furthermore, we can > introduce an SQL-like feature for the filtered property map service. The > following gives a potential example: > > Request: > > { > "entities": [ "flow:1", "flow:2", "flow:3" ], > "propertyies": [ "ip_src", "ip_dst", "tcp_src" ], > "constraints": [ "[2] eq 80" ] // Means only selecting the flows whose > tcp_src is equal to 80 > } > > This is indeed a quite interesting, unifying idea. One concern is that it adds more complexity. Do you have use cases where this extension, in particular, the addition of constraints, help? Richard > Welcome to give any comments or propose some new points to discuss. > > Best, > Jensen > > [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/aSg36442jx4-Qtz7mBvfxDsqGSE > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/2l31OYpqzREMe2vBMApZmdhrR80 >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
