[As co-chair] Sabine, Richard: If you decide to proceed as you outline below, then please realize that time is of essence.
[As individual contributor] I am a bit confused by this discussion though. Are cellular addresses ALTO address types? In which case they will have to be registered in the ALTO Address Type Registry as detailed in Section 14.4 of the base ALTO RFC [1]. Or are cellular address ALTO entities? In which case they will have to be registered through unified-props registry in Section 9.2 of the unified-props document [2]? Why do we have legacy identifiers like 'ipv4' and 'ipv6' being registered in two registries, i.e., in the registries of [1] and [2]? In fact, why do we have a ALTO Entity Domain Registry in [2] at all? I am afraid I am missing something ... can you please elaborate? [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7285#section-14.4 [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-01#section-9.2 Thanks, On 02/26/2018 10:18 AM, Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) wrote: > 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? - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani / [email protected] Network Data Science, Nokia Networks Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
