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

["Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <[e-mail]>]

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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Y. Richard Yang
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 8:11 PM
To: Dawn Chan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Gurbani, Vijay (Nokia - US/Naperville) <[e-mail]>; Wendy Roome <[e-mail]>; Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 / [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Network Data Science, Nokia Networks
Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq




--
--
 =====================================
| Y. Richard Yang <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>   |
| Professor of Computer Science       |
| http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/        |
 =====================================