Re: [alto] Review of draft-ietf-alto-xdom-disc (Part 1: Sections 1 - 3)

Sebastian Kiesel <ietf-alto@skiesel.de> Thu, 20 July 2017 08:55 UTC

Return-Path: <sebi@gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de>
X-Original-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA6512EE45; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 01:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nLNTqyHOt81K; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 01:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de (gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de [IPv6:2a02:a00:e000:116::41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37D2C12ECB4; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 01:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sebi by gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <sebi@gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de>) id 1dY7Ee-0002yD-7C; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:55:04 +0200
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:55:04 +0200
From: Sebastian Kiesel <ietf-alto@skiesel.de>
To: "Y. Richard Yang" <yry@cs.yale.edu>
Cc: IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-alto-xdom-disc@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170720085504.GD3563@gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de>
References: <CANUuoLobAY9drhLEkeYgynvMG17AH9y6gC0xDrMuKRgek_xhzQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170719201040.GC3563@gw01.ehlo.wurstkaes.de> <CANUuoLqfG0TAMB=F7RpiXRaz7t8dKbG1WwwbCaQnfhw_mdPrmQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANUuoLqfG0TAMB=F7RpiXRaz7t8dKbG1WwwbCaQnfhw_mdPrmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Languages: en, de
Organization: my personal mail account
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/EySI3OwCLZgPs6efp5GmG07Fhdk>
Subject: Re: [alto] Review of draft-ietf-alto-xdom-disc (Part 1: Sections 1 - 3)
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <alto.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/alto/>
List-Post: <mailto:alto@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:55:16 -0000

Hi Richard,

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:47:06AM +0200, Y. Richard Yang wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
> 
> Indeed. Most comments are editorial as your draft is very well written
> already. The main issues which may become non-editorial are (1) whether to
> make the demarcation points flexible; (2) some more discussions on the
> mapping between prefix and information mapping. I will be more than happy
> to send a few more sentences right after this ietf.

Looking forward to see a text proposal!

Regarding (1): our goal was to have a simple and well-defined algorithm
which causes as few as possible load on the DNS - the demarcation points
are following the usual prefix lengths that registries delegate.


> Regarding the 64 bits example. What if the prefix is say 65 bits. It looks
> that the nested if will skip it. Do I misunderstand?

Well, a prefix length of /65 should not occur with "regular" IPv6
unicast ... Do we need to open tha can of worms about IPv4 addresses
encoded as v6 addresses etc.?

Thanks,
Sebastian