Hi Richard, I agree, the Unified Property draft is definitely a good placeholder for the cellular addresses. Domain and entities are already defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-randriamasy-alto-cellular-adresses-01 . So how about in a next step, we consider pouring the content of the latter draft in the UP draft and in a further step propose a list of properties, while looking at other WG to see whether they already specified any?
Sabine From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Y. Richard Yang Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 8:11 PM To: Dawn Chan <[email protected]> Cc: Gurbani, Vijay (Nokia - US/Naperville) <[email protected]>; Wendy Roome <[email protected]>; Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: unified-props, cellular addresses and path-vector It looks that the suggestion by Dawn is reasonable. I am taking a look again at the possibility of integrating cellular into UP quickly. An alternative is that we get it done shortly, in the next couple days. If this is the approach, Sabine is a great person to work together. Make sense, Sabine? Richard On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Dawn Chan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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/ [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2017-alto-01/materials/minutes-interim-2017-alto-01-201712180600/ [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-randriamasy-alto-cellular-adresses/ [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-path-vector/ Thank you, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani / [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Network Data Science, Nokia Networks Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq -- -- ===================================== | Y. Richard Yang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> | | Professor of Computer Science | | http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/ | =====================================
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
