Re: [alto] Final Decision of Unified Properties Design before Moving to WGLC

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

Hi Jensen,

Thanks a lot for the provided examples. It will be indeed be helpful to present a fully fleshed example for the 2 options and the related pros & cons.
That is: example information resource in IRD, example request and response.

My question on option 2 and in general is to see how to handle examples where a property map depends on 2 or more resources.
For example, if FCI capabilities are defined on PIDs, the map would depend on both Network Map and FCI map.
Questions:
- does this example make sense?
- what is the probability of having similar cases of property maps depending on multiple other information resources?

Thanks,
Sabine



From: Jensen Zhang <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2019 4:28 PM
To: Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <[e-mail]>
Cc: IETF ALTO <[e-mail]>; Richard Yang <[e-mail]>
Subject: Final Decision of Unified Properties Design before Moving to WGLC

Hi all,

Authors of the document draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new had a discussion about the unified properties design last week. We reviewed two design options proposed in IETF 104 and analyzed the pros and cons of both.

For the design option 1, binding resource dependencies to property type, it is easy to process but hard to understand (we spend a lot of time trying to clarify the design).
For the design option 2, binding resource dependencies to each entity and property, it is easy to understand (analogous to the relational database) but hard to specify (e.g., IANA registry). Fortunately, authors already have a proposal about the IANA registry design of design option 2, which requires three new registries for entity domain types, properties, and resource types.

But we still need to make the final decision before we move forward.

Hi Sabine,

You mentioned that you still had some questions for the design option 2. Could you post them here? I started to revise the document based on the design option 2, but have not merged it to the latest revision. I hope our co-authors can agree on a design at least before we moving to the document revising for WGLC.

There are some materials talking about two design options:

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/slides-104-alto-unified-properties-for-alto-01.pdf
[2] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1lCcLLbyKqZjGADxcHSorfADKx_CoG1fz_j6GBfPGZQY/edit?usp=sharing

Best regards,
Jensen