Sabine, Just add some additional comments to Dawn's proposal. In my opinion, I think we need to make the unified-props draft minimal so that we can push it to WGLC asap. So except for those entity domains which has been defined in the existing RFCs (i.e. 'ipv4', 'ipv6', 'pid'), we should not introduce more entity domains into this draft. Base on this principle, we also suggest moving "ane" domain out of the current unified-prop draft.
And after the unified-prop draft is pushed to WGLC and published as RFC, we can be comfortable with registering a bunch of practical entity domains and properties (e.g. cellular addresses, cdni capabilities, ane, etc.) by starting a new draft. But before that, there is a major issue we need to fix. Just like what I posted in the previous email, we need to figure out the consistency issue between ALTO Address Type Registry and ALTO Entity Domain Registry. Whether we add cellular addresses as a new entity domain or not, this issue has to be fixed. Do you agree on this? btw. Sabine, would you like to be a co-author of the unified-props draft? Best, Jensen On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:25 PM Dawn Chan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sabine, > > Actually I do find the proposal of the entity domain “ecgi”, but I do not > see the detailed definition in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-randriamasy-alto-cellular-adresses-01. > Actually, since the concept of unified property is clean enough. And I > still remember that Shawn proposed to add a new domain country code for > CDNI. So the suggestion is to remove the whole "Section 3.4 ANE Domain" in > the unified property map, so that it will be defined in the path vector > draft itself. This way, other entity domains can be registered in their own > related document? > > Dawn > > On 27 Feb 2018, at 12:18 AM, Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) > <[email protected]> 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? > > Sabine > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] > <[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]> > 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]> > 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] > Network Data Science, Nokia Networks > Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq > > > > > > > -- > -- > ===================================== > | Y. Richard Yang <[email protected]> | > | Professor of Computer Science | > | http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/ | > ===================================== > > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
