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

Kai GAO <godrickk@gmail.com> Sun, 09 December 2018 14:47 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 63DA81277BB for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Dec 2018 06:47:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_PASS=-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 hK4Mfci5ZJXq for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Dec 2018 06:47:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x934.google.com (mail-ua1-x934.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::934]) (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 334041200D7 for <alto@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Dec 2018 06:47:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x934.google.com with SMTP id p9so2972251uaa.5 for <alto@ietf.org>; Sun, 09 Dec 2018 06:47:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Wl56BsphtFbIp5h3tTy2ZxFSvaNl43E/ymdHNLypScw=; b=kOC3+F8BQ0QYNDQm4HphQ0Pr48yz66INkejhaCnSMKwsmAaqDUvsO91mekskglduwY ifbIOuePz826L16qNLs+lCud6baFj60ltTZJy2PgT8sSXdQk6eBc2wwJdK/qXAUtWShe E18ARqzAXIqqFgAvHeFQxUI3GJld29+0JG+NW3QvTKOBsr076qMCGQ4C1g3ZbdeuSdmD x27Zd1P1xFKQQmBs9NY9o/DdqHmRjF/OJzirMYenxPsGepTBp3s27Dp/dTbgwG5m4K2T PiiNCuxrePl+9JihpWjZCkL+xWy6YoRXmPZGYqdQY8BJXPY09oXoTQ3rDw4fAEbrHXm5 eY/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Wl56BsphtFbIp5h3tTy2ZxFSvaNl43E/ymdHNLypScw=; b=qfB3NQeD3nDhQMI3Qqko/Mubk3lvHvDQGKE+rPEMdg+GVLZ2oyBvQHrp2f+uT2bMlk Btpdec9zXrkQOM2/8xyZW0bMuLtJcbddXEuiT9Odjv/ghCj0fAuSUCjjJaJLhwdTyJEZ nYHLR1t0Cw7AOla7alOZ91z3zwhwo/1zuQgnCrsRHOc/KaTWH/ro/tE0v59FWS1nokoP PxaxJFl4+ICB8J3vW5P9Cd4x8n3sfXcZmNgERNRjox0mDAJU3wZvYhUxoV2rL15bVMEi QzHPJwHYfmetlxwLxC13ETmmrDKCLIhvWs29KE91iNhn4Qbk6g6R4MqZiw+EX64/4CmP SGCw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWbJzFFXUy85IhRfil6WC/8LPAMAe0R8SPBdc1kO/8XVR3YuEpO3 6JBgC+kpq5D4IRH+xDgKkyaerrDO/YiRRXSNATxh+g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/Uu5r3KdtdMt525vtxutQhC5zCA+w5DzYm/naEvIFRTzdD7gVBuvsiFxPkyoGvoT0lelcwYKRjCSY8x6J5QGQA=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:6652:: with SMTP id b18mr4030168uaq.46.1544366833128; Sun, 09 Dec 2018 06:47:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Kai GAO <godrickk@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 22:47:01 +0800
Message-ID: <CAOELiNNXK4T8CaXTALQU7+0Fazxz_-xPnH=uArygYsuxFoB8fw@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007dda14057c97ec57"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/lTT6zFqF-JrExKK7sbMuHX9iu40>
Subject: [alto] Review on draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-04
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: Sun, 09 Dec 2018 15:25:09 -0000

Hi everyone,

Below is a review on the unified property map extension:

1. In Sec 2.1, the first sentence reads "The entity is an extended concept
of the endpoint ...". Here the word "extended" may not be very precise, and
the term "generalization" (which is also used in the abstract) sounds
better. Generalization indicates that an endpoint is essentially an entity
while extension could be misleading and even incorrect. For example, in
certain languages, A extends B indicates that A is also B.

2. In Sec 2.2, an entity domain is defined as "a set of entities". This
seems odd because then one can say a set of two entities
{"ipv4:190.0.2.34", "pid:PID1"} is also a domain, which doesn't make sense.
An entity domain should be a generalization of endpoint address type, which
must define the syntax and semantics of the entity addresses in this
domain. Thus, borrowed from the definition of a domain in math, it could be
"the complete set of all possible values of a given address type". Here the
"given address type" is uniquely represented by the domain name, which
indicates the "semantics" for this domain, while syntax for "all possible
values" is defined by the "domain-specific entity addresses".

I also feel Sec 2 can be slightly rearranged for better clarity. Right now
there are a lot of cross-references between different concepts. I suggest
having a short section introducing the terms and then using a paragraph to
specify their relations, for example,

(domain name, domain-specific address type, hierarchies, relations)
-(1:1)-> domain -(1:n)-> entity address -(1:1)-> entity -(1:m)-> property
<-(1:1)- (property type, property value)

3. I think the draft should make it clear that the uniqueness of an entity
address only applies in the same unified property map. For example,
"pid:PID1" could point to different entities when two UPMs depend on two
different network maps, both have the PID "PID1".

Best,
Kai