Re: [alto] I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-09.txt

Kai GAO <godrickk@gmail.com> Thu, 10 October 2019 02:46 UTC

Return-Path: <godrickk@gmail.com>
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 97A2C120046 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 19:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 UDPgNCN7gY1e for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 19:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72e.google.com (mail-qk1-x72e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F998120048 for <alto@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 19:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72e.google.com with SMTP id 4so4222696qki.6 for <alto@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Oct 2019 19:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MXIrSV96E+mPT0/gQyWRkywkHx5KscNOi4aLKkfTAEs=; b=iGLSEQxn/OVgDJ76dZopeahT/ewp5rrWQEI+iLI2FkgqSI+AZ/nZOl6TKFy9IIITs9 1Mq810easYpf/mLyGx5rTcSN3yAp35FDI0lkqcaTFzcTyMNVe/B7r6Wp77KSfLcdo0r6 pIjSa6sT8pRcWrTQfH5AJ5BCh7D2Tls1aaEl8ufxKdlzCxJyx9rVmBd8K5bpOCSxPrJl o4qzQ0ohpfb54MfS1PVWBhi1OgwC/T4fxMwOoF64qZjJQe4YEzE5qPAviY8VXMS5JvNp /ln0dNLR/OWKLZWgTBTGWz4ITtignq3Me4PbOD+uwHH7oyAUhlSSexvJX/Mn7A5bcsdA duZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MXIrSV96E+mPT0/gQyWRkywkHx5KscNOi4aLKkfTAEs=; b=gzE3Uua6QXuzDZg8KdE7oZ1ViMmUjdsV4HnGxAIsiI6FwmdEs+YS0u9rXCPRoHD1bJ AEnmMFKWw2bvDp6r4u+5tX0nbgpmXhCQRllHeOjmXKFc+VmW0zhGyJz2q4esuMeSryPZ 3N602Svbe+QngdKtp3Rb/3lnnytx5VFAKq7q71bdxTZ8ndlSHicN6jAaJcKROyXw69qF GaQkggk9QNqUQ6Y5Cejq2AQ6TIfT8VEkPC4s9b3nR8xicqe5/NULJtiBQfjwYr9HUHu5 2wPecm1TeHcdjjuvDVi+pGa8FcqbyffxyxHKctdWhY+6YtM8R2vly8bCNSDzZCzEq46L 2+uw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW9azoqtpIE+mUdQuhUEV2PD9pFD/c6jC1giE1UANHk3pouJUQ3 uYadr+K6oqJm1abc+n70IU1YITLB2YoIokgRFcc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzx+SlUVJL/M/UNGWGPN1zrey6orodpwqayY5aHGTNj1kwRu+LMU2Boyom+RtTBjfgyt10jISuBzW6iQB1YEsA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1592:: with SMTP id d18mr7007576qkk.282.1570675586365; Wed, 09 Oct 2019 19:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156760442278.22833.16544634733937720759@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAEDarXLD+eJVM4rQg94FmmnJhUwXCROdNzen34nuJcwSwb=ihw@mail.gmail.com> <PR1PR07MB5100C260E33E211D02A5AEBF95840@PR1PR07MB5100.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAEDarXLkZ30hA1m5Y9x7N8z5TcYEyh2r-FuXkfAsWhGV4Cm7EA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAbpuypFVJrQ2WrNPvjCBOrxM4-Ny6_jx3JSkXR789UMwpVX=A@mail.gmail.com> <CAOELiNM=cHR0V_W2UAZZd2bvDjGe-VSSvrDd59R--_Ea4KQ8NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAbpuyqf=rpoz7CEw3ehm9tkQRtJr04aLoVUihF-neeM8Frf1A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAbpuyqf=rpoz7CEw3ehm9tkQRtJr04aLoVUihF-neeM8Frf1A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kai GAO <godrickk@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:46:12 +0800
Message-ID: <CAOELiNN5Uewq6aG3-_xOBXS05=XfOakzk69B3Gp1iHzePM6Oww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jensen Zhang <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com>
Cc: Danny Alex Lachos Perez <dlachosper@gmail.com>, IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000061fc20059485683b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/U1BbZTgJehJCydNAVaolIlOQAzk>
Subject: Re: [alto] I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-09.txt
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 10 Oct 2019 02:46:31 -0000

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 <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com>;
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 <godrickk@gmail.com>; 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 <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com>;
>> 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 <
>>> dlachosper@gmail.com>; 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) <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com>; 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 <alto-bounces@ietf.org>; *On Behalf Of *Danny Alex Lachos
>>>>> Perez
>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2019 8:28 PM
>>>>> *To:* IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>;
>>>>> *Cc:* i-d-announce@ietf.org
>>>>> *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 <internet-drafts@ietf.org>; 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
>>>>> alto@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>