Hi Kai, Great! This structure looks better to clarify those concepts. I would like to support it. If nobody has another proposal against it, let's add this change in the next revision.
I can send a new draft to you by this weekend so that you can take another pass before we upload the next revision. Thanks, Jensen On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:46 PM Kai GAO <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jensen and all, > > Actually, I would suggest the following structure: > > - Basic Concepts > - Information Resource > - Entity > - Entity Property > - Entity Domain > - Property Map <==== Explain how property map works and the motivations > for exporting and aggregating entity domains > - Resource-Specific Entity Domain > - Aggregated Entity Domain > - Resource-Specify Entity Property > > The two top-level sections (basic concepts and property map) are similar > to Sec 2 (Terminology) and Sec 5 (Network Map) in RFC 7285. > > In the basic concepts section, we are describing what already exists even > without the property map service. > > In the property map section, we are "inventing" concepts that serve > certain practical purposes (e.g., provide indications of what > entities/properties can be queried, aggregate entities/properties). > > Having said that, it is OK with me that we keep the current structure or > only make some small changes if it requires too much work. > > Best, > Kai > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:11 AM Jensen Zhang <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Kai, >> >> I reviewed the document again. I think you are proposing the following >> restructure, right? >> >> Entity -> Information Resource -> Entity Property (Resource-Specific >> Entity Property) -> Property Map -> Entity Domain (Resource-Specific Entity >> Domain, Aggregated Entity Domain) >> >> Intuitively it looks good. But when you look into the motivation of >> Resource-Specific Entity Property, you will find it is weak here. Because >> only when you use the Aggregated Entity Domain representation in a Property >> Map, you will need this concept. Otherwise, it is useless. That is why I >> put it behind those two concepts. But maybe your intuition is right. The " >> Resource-Specific Entity Property" should be out of "Entity Domain". How >> about we move 2.5.4 to 2.6? How do you think? >> >> Best, >> Jensen >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:02 AM Kai GAO <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jensen and all, >>> >>> I'm looking at the -10 version and find it quite odd to have 2.5.4 >>> Resource-specific Entity Property as a subsection of 2.4 Entity Domain. >>> >>> My suggestion is to move 2.5.4 to 2.2 instead. Another potential >>> improvement is to move 2.4 Information Resource before 2.2. >>> >>> Best, >>> Kai >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 5:28 AM Jensen Zhang <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Danny, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your review and comments. Sabine and I are working on the >>>> next revision. We will address all the issues in the next revision. >>>> >>>> And for your additional comment, actually, the "ip-pid-property-map" >>>> resource in IRD is an example of Aggregated Entity Domain. Sec 9.7 should >>>> illustrate it. But you are right, the current example in Sec 9.7 does not >>>> show the benefit of Aggregated Entity Domain. I will also revise this >>>> example in the next revision. >>>> >>>> Looking forward to your further comments. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Jensen >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 9:50 AM Danny Alex Lachos Perez < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Sabine, >>>>> >>>>> I have a quick additional comment: >>>>> >>>>> I believe that an example (sec. 9) of Aggregated Entity Domain is >>>>> missing. >>>>> Perhaps you could re-use (or extend) the IRD example [0] and try to >>>>> add a couple of sentences to indicate equivalent entity property mappings >>>>> (see slide 17, 18 in [1]). >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Danny Lachos >>>>> [0] >>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-09#page-28 >>>>> [1] >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-alto-unified-properties-for-the-alto-protocol-02.pdf >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:42 AM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - >>>>> FR/Paris-Saclay) <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Danny, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Many thanks for your review. I saw your last comment is in Section >>>>>> 9.7. >>>>>> >>>>>> Should we consider that until section 9.7 your review is complete or >>>>>> will you have more questions? >>>>>> >>>>>> We look forward to your other comments, >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sabine >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* alto <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Danny Alex >>>>>> Lachos Perez >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2019 8:28 PM >>>>>> *To:* IETF ALTO <[email protected]> >>>>>> *Cc:* [email protected] >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [alto] I-D Action: >>>>>> draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-09...txt >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear authors, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I started to read the “*Unified Properties for the ALTO Protocol*” draft >>>>>> (-09). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please, see my first comments in the attached file (search for >>>>>> '[DANNY]'). >>>>>> >>>>>> Many of them are suggestions about clarity and format issues . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I will continue the review and send additional comments in a short >>>>>> time. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Danny Lachos >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:41 AM <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>>>>> directories. >>>>>> This draft is a work item of the Application-Layer Traffic >>>>>> Optimization WG of the IETF. >>>>>> >>>>>> Title : Unified Properties for the ALTO Protocol >>>>>> Authors : Wendy Roome >>>>>> Sabine Randriamasy >>>>>> Y. Richard Yang >>>>>> Jingxuan Jensen Zhang >>>>>> Kai Gao >>>>>> Filename : draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-09.txt >>>>>> Pages : 43 >>>>>> Date : 2019-09-04 >>>>>> >>>>>> Abstract: >>>>>> This document extends the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization >>>>>> (ALTO) Protocol [RFC7285] by generalizing the concept of "endpoint >>>>>> properties" to generic types of entities, and by presenting those >>>>>> properties as maps, similar to the network and cost maps in >>>>>> [RFC7285]. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new/ >>>>>> >>>>>> There are also htmlized versions available at: >>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-09 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-09 >>>>>> >>>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-09 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>>>>> submission >>>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>>>>> >>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>>>>> ftp://ftp...ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>>>>> <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> alto mailing list >>>>>> [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 >>>> >>>
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
