Hi Jensen,
Please see inline.
On 02/27/2018 03:44 PM, Jensen Zhang wrote:
Hi all,
Continue the discussion above. I suggest modifying the first paragraph
of page 26 of draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-01
"It is RECOMMANDED that a new ALTO entity domain be registered when
the corresponding address type is registered based on ALTO Address
Type Registry [RFC7285]."
as the following:
"When a new address type is registered in the ALTO Address Type
Registry [RFC7285], the same identifier MUST be also registered in the
ALTO Entity Domain Registry. And the Entity Address Encoding of this
entity domain identifier MUST include both Address Encoding and Prefix
Encoding of the same identifier registered in the ALTO Address Type
Registry [RFC7285]."
It might be odd to have two encodings for a single entry. Since address
encoding is actually a special case of prefix encoding, maybe we can use
prefix encoding alone?
Any comment?
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 3:10 PM Jensen Zhang
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 / [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
Network Data Science, Nokia Networks
Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
