Hi all, Another issue is the consistency between Entity Domain Registry (EDR) and Address Type Registry (ATR).
Even with the current proposal, it MAY not be able to guarantee consistency. Consider the following case: Draft A proposes a new entity domain called "ABCP", which is not an address type. By the time of the registration, no address type of the same name exists, so the entity domain is only registered to EDR. Draft B proposes a new address type called "ABCP", which is registered to ATR. Thus, it is impossible to "guarantee" consistency if ATR does not verify the registered domain names in EDR. In that case, it may be a better idea to NOT guarantee implicit consistency at all and make dependencies explicit. This can be easily achieved by appending a column to EDR with the corresponding address type name, (e.g., "ipv4" for "ipv4" and "ipv6" for "ipv6"). Thus, any library which supports UP extension should be able to translate an endpoint address to an entity address and vice versa. One way to think of it is that the conflicts mainly come from name clashes. This "fallback name" gives address type an alias in EDR, which resolves name clashes. Just my 2 cents. Best, Kai
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
