Draft Unified Property is quite stable at the moment, and the major problem
left is whether the cellular address needs to be appended. Actually, since the
Unified Property maintains an entity domain registry to achieve extensibility
so that we suggest the new entity domain cellular address to be registered in
itself. This way, the draft Unified Property can proceed first.
Besides, path-vector and unified property depend on each other so they should
move as a bundle.
Do you think this is a feasible solution?
On 23 Feb 2018, at 3:16 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani
All: In preparation for moving the unified property draft  ahead, the
minutes of the December 2017 Virtual Interim Meeting  indicate that
the chairs seek answers to the following questions from the WG:
(1) Are cellular addresses an important abstraction that the working
group will like to introduce in ALTO? Currently, cellular address
format is specified in a companion draft .
(2) If yes, is the unified-props-new draft the correct place to add the
Please note that the unified property draft  gates path-vector ,
as there is a dependency of path-vector on unified-props. Thus, the
plan is to move these two drafts ahead as a bundle.
Which means that we need to reach a conclusion on the questions posed
above so unified-props and path-vector can move ahead.
Please express an substantive opinion on the above questions in the
Vijay K. Gurbani / vijay.gurb...@nokia.com
Network Data Science, Nokia Networks
alto mailing list