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

About the registry consistency, I agree that the current specification is
not enough, although the definition of the consistency looks reasonable.

Adding a column in EDR to alias to the id in ATR makes sense for me. It
means that the EDR has more proactivity to enforce the consistency. It can
avoid the new registration in ATR to break the consistency. And it only
requires a slight change to the current specification. I support this
design.

Sabine and Richard, do you have any opinions?

Best,
Jensen

On Sun, Dec 9, 2018, 10:45 AM Kai GAO <godrickk@gmail.com> wrote:

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