[alto] Review on draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-04

[Kai GAO <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

Another issue is the consistency between Entity Domain Registry (EDR) and
Address Type Registry (ATR).

Even with the current proposal, it MAY not be able to guarantee
consistency. Consider the following case:

Draft A proposes a new entity domain called "ABCP", which is not an address
type. By the time of the registration, no address type of the same name
exists, so the entity domain is only registered to EDR.

Draft B proposes a new address type called "ABCP", which is registered to
ATR.

Thus, it is impossible to "guarantee" consistency if ATR does not verify
the registered domain names in EDR. In that case, it may be a better idea
to NOT guarantee implicit consistency at all and make dependencies
explicit. This can be easily achieved by appending a column to EDR with the
corresponding address type name, (e.g., "ipv4" for "ipv4" and "ipv6" for
"ipv6"). Thus, any library which supports UP extension should be able to
translate an endpoint address to an entity address and vice versa.

One way to think of it is that the conflicts mainly come from name clashes.
This "fallback name" gives address type an alias in EDR, which resolves
name clashes.

Just my 2 cents.

Best,
Kai