Hi Kai, Thanks for your review. Please see my comments inline.
On Sun, Dec 9, 2018, 10:25 AM Kai GAO <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Below is a review on the unified property map extension: > > 1. In Sec 2.1, the first sentence reads "The entity is an extended concept > of the endpoint ...". Here the word "extended" may not be very precise, and > the term "generalization" (which is also used in the abstract) sounds > better. Generalization indicates that an endpoint is essentially an entity > while extension could be misleading and even incorrect. For example, in > certain languages, A extends B indicates that A is also B. > The term "generalization" sounds more precise. If nobody has strong opinion to disagree, I will update it in the next revision. > 2. In Sec 2.2, an entity domain is defined as "a set of entities". This > seems odd because then one can say a set of two entities > {"ipv4:190.0.2.34", "pid:PID1"} is also a domain, which doesn't make sense. > An entity domain should be a generalization of endpoint address type, which > must define the syntax and semantics of the entity addresses in this > domain. Thus, borrowed from the definition of a domain in math, it could be > "the complete set of all possible values of a given address type". Here the > "given address type" is uniquely represented by the domain name, which > indicates the "semantics" for this domain, while syntax for "all possible > values" is defined by the "domain-specific entity addresses". > Exactly. I will change the wording. > I also feel Sec 2 can be slightly rearranged for better clarity. Right now > there are a lot of cross-references between different concepts. I suggest > having a short section introducing the terms and then using a paragraph to > specify their relations, for example, > > (domain name, domain-specific address type, hierarchies, relations) > -(1:1)-> domain -(1:n)-> entity address -(1:1)-> entity -(1:m)-> property > <-(1:1)- (property type, property value) > Good point. I will think about it. > 3. I think the draft should make it clear that the uniqueness of an entity > address only applies in the same unified property map. For example, > "pid:PID1" could point to different entities when two UPMs depend on two > different network maps, both have the PID "PID1". > I agree. I will make it clear. > Best, > Kai > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto All the comments on the definition part make the document clearer. I will update them. Thank you so much! Jensen
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
