Hi all,

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 
the https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-randriamasy-alto-cellular-adresses-01.txt 
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 
<vijay.gurb...@nokia.com<mailto:vijay.gurb...@nokia.com>> wrote:

All: In preparation for moving the unified property draft [0] ahead, the
minutes of the December 2017 Virtual Interim Meeting [1] 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].

(2) If yes, is the unified-props-new draft the correct place to add the
cellular representation?

Please note that the unified property draft [0] gates path-vector [3],
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
mailing list.

[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new/
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-path-vector/

Thank you,

- vijay
Vijay K. Gurbani / vijay.gurb...@nokia.com
Network Data Science, Nokia Networks
Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

alto mailing list

Reply via email to