Hi Vijay and all,
I think what Jensen elaborates here is that any address type has a
corresponding entity domain. As unified property map is basically an
extension to the endpoint property map, it also extends the domain of
address types to entity domains.
Unfortunately, there are cases where we still need to distinguish
between address type (for example, in endpoint cost map) and entity
domain, so two registries seem inevitiable.
Regards,
Kai
On 02/27/2018 03:10 PM, Jensen Zhang wrote:
Hi Vijay,
It is a good point to explain the relationship of "ALTO Address Type
Registry" and "ALTO Entity Domain Registry".
See my comment inline.
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 3:21 AM Vijay K. Gurbani
<vijay.gurb...@nokia.com <mailto:vijay.gurb...@nokia.com>> wrote:
[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].
Yes, cellular address are ALTO address types. So of course they should
be registered in the "ALTO Address Type Registry" based on RFC7285.
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]?
And yes, cellular addresses "should" also be ALTO entities. But let's
delay the answer to this question and see the following questions first.
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?
Why we introduce a new Registry? Because the key idea is to move the
property map service from endpoint scope to the more general scope
(which we call "entity domain" in the draft).
So,
1) in this general scope, *an entity MAY or MAY NOT be an endpoint*.
For example, "pid" is introduced as an entity domain, but it is not an
endpoint address type. To allow this, we need this new registry.
2) But to cover the capability of the endpoint property service, *an
endpoint MUST be an entity*. As the result, "ipv4" and "ipv6" are
registered in both "ALTO Address Type Register" and "ALTO Entity
Domain Registry".
Now let's go back to the question "are cellular addresses ALTO
entities?". Sure, as they are ALTO endpoint addresses, they MUST be
ALTO entities. So they MUST be registered in the "ALTO Entity Domain
Registry".
I am afraid I am missing something ... can you please elaborate?
Is it clear now? Do we agree on this? Or Sabine and Richad want to say
anything?
I think we need to well define the process of the ALTO Entity Domain
Registry to guarantee the syntax and semantics of the same indentifier
registered in both Registries are consistent. And I think this may be
a missing item in the current unified-props draft. If we fix this
part, the draft should be ready.
Thanks,
Jensen
[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 / vijay.gurb...@nokia.com
<mailto:vijay.gurb...@nokia.com>
Network Data Science, Nokia Networks
Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org <mailto:alto@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
