Re: [alto] unified-props, cellular addresses and path-vector

[Jensen Zhang]

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 
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 / vijay.gurb...@nokia.com
> Network Data Science, Nokia Networks
> Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq
>
> ___
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>
___
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

Re: [alto] unified-props, cellular addresses and path-vector

[Vijay K. Gurbani]

[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].

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]?

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?

I am afraid I am missing something ... can you please elaborate?

[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 / vijay.gurb...@nokia.com
Network Data Science, Nokia Networks
Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

___
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

Re: [alto] unified-props, cellular addresses and path-vector

[Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)]

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: yang.r.y...@gmail.com [mailto:yang.r.y...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Y. 
Richard Yang
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 8:11 PM
To: Dawn Chan 
Cc: Gurbani, Vijay (Nokia - US/Naperville) ; Wendy 
Roome ; Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) 
; alto@ietf.org
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 
> 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 
> 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 / vijay.gurb...@nokia.com
Network Data Science, Nokia Networks
Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq




--
--
 =
| Y. Richard Yang >   |
| Professor of Computer Science   |
| http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/|
 =
___
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto