Re: [alto] unified-props, cellular addresses and path-vector

Kai Gao <gaok12@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn> Tue, 27 February 2018 08:38 UTC

Return-Path: <gaok12@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn>
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 4248012702E for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:38:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.209
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 NaBr67W3v5-O for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:38:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tsinghua.edu.cn (smtp28.tsinghua.edu.cn [101.6.4.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8547F1200F1 for <alto@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:38:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.10] (unknown [166.111.132.213]) by app-1 (Coremail) with SMTP id DwQGZQAHZmkBGZVayrnuAA--.40470S2; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:38:25 +0800 (CST)
To: Jensen Zhang <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com>, "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vijay.gurbani@nokia.com>
Cc: "alto@ietf.org" <alto@ietf.org>
References: <5e6a98ff-3c8d-f1b8-2deb-21788cdfef09@nokia.com> <BLUPR02MB1202578B8645F956E30B7066B5CC0@BLUPR02MB1202.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CANUuoLrAR=b9b36extXU6Hc6VSv1ExsD7Yze09b8WUnfSnbJCg@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR0702MB3738F145B3656EEC8E59957795C10@HE1PR0702MB3738.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <ce583dd3-f378-e465-bd20-14b295a43366@nokia.com> <CAAbpuypzb6=42zYq9r16Zi69r62d0CpPyrFUmWT+oQg7=MqBuA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAbpuyo=f9-WfN257Q5CU5SEzqZzBgSK1YMsUTxYNg=U4k_e7g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kai Gao <gaok12@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn>
Message-ID: <d1881c03-9642-ccb5-3e27-e8ccda42e1f2@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:38:25 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAbpuyo=f9-WfN257Q5CU5SEzqZzBgSK1YMsUTxYNg=U4k_e7g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------21A1337ADEFAC3DCBA2F6184"
Content-Language: en-US
X-CM-TRANSID: DwQGZQAHZmkBGZVayrnuAA--.40470S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoWxXrW5Zr47Kw1kuF48Jry7ZFb_yoWrtw4rpF W5Gw45Gr4jvr40gw4kZF18ZFyFyF97Jay3Arn8Gr90y398Wr92vF4ak3y5CFy5GF1rA3Z0 qr4Y9w45Ww4FvaDanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUU9Fb7Iv0xC_Zr1lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_tr0E3s1l84ACjcxK6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr1j6F4UJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIE14v26rxl6s0DM28EF7xvwV C2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW0oVCq3wAac4AC62xK8xCEY4vEwIxC4wAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x0 82IY62kv0487McIj6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r106r15McIj6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwAm72 CE4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lF7xvr2IY64vIr41l7480Y4vEI4kI2Ix0rVAqx4xJMxk0xIA0 c2IEe2xFo4CEbIxvr21lc2xSY4AK67AK6r43MxAIw28IcxkI7VAKI48JMxC20s026xCaFV Cjc4AY6r1j6r4UMI8I3I0E5I8CrVAFwI0_JrI_JrWlx2IqxVCjr7xvwVAFwI0_JrI_JrWl x4CE17CEb7AF67AKxVWUXVWUAwCIc40Y0x0EwIxGrwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r 1xMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVCY1x0267AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_Zr0_ Wr1UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_GrUvcS sGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7IU8ySoPUUUUU==
X-CM-SenderInfo: 5jdryi2s6ptxtovo32xlqjx3vdohv3gofq/
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/li3hCvG3gxq4uA_Skb7Iv5tCsDc>
Subject: Re: [alto] unified-props, cellular addresses and path-vector
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 08:38:30 -0000

Hi Jensen,

Please see inline.

On 02/27/2018 03:44 PM, Jensen Zhang wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Continue the discussion above. I suggest modifying the first paragraph 
> of page 26 of draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-01
>
> "It is RECOMMANDED that a new ALTO entity domain be registered when 
> the corresponding address type is registered based on ALTO Address 
> Type Registry [RFC7285]."
>
> as the following:
>
> "When a new address type is registered in the ALTO Address Type 
> Registry [RFC7285], the same identifier MUST be also registered in the 
> ALTO Entity Domain Registry. And the Entity Address Encoding of this 
> entity domain identifier MUST include both Address Encoding and Prefix 
> Encoding of the same identifier registered in the ALTO Address Type 
> Registry [RFC7285]."
It might be odd to have two encodings for a single entry. Since address 
encoding is actually a special case of prefix encoding, maybe we can use 
prefix encoding alone?
>
> Any comment?
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 3:10 PM Jensen Zhang 
> <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com <mailto:jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Vijay,
>
>     It is a good point to explain the relationship of "ALTO Address
>     Type Registry" and "ALTO Entity Domain Registry".
>
>     See my comment inline.
>
>     On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 3:21 AM Vijay K. Gurbani
>     <vijay.gurbani@nokia.com <mailto:vijay.gurbani@nokia.com>> wrote:
>
>         [As co-chair]
>
>         Sabine, Richard: If you decide to proceed as you outline
>         below, then
>         please realize that time is of essence.
>
>         [As individual contributor]
>
>         I am a bit confused by this discussion though.  Are cellular
>         addresses
>         ALTO address types?  In which case they will have to be
>         registered in
>         the ALTO Address Type Registry as detailed in Section 14.4 of
>         the base
>         ALTO RFC [1].
>
>     Yes, cellular address are ALTO address types. So of course they
>     should be registered in the "ALTO Address Type Registry" based on
>     RFC7285.
>
>         Or are cellular address ALTO entities?  In which case they
>         will have to
>         be registered through unified-props registry in Section 9.2 of the
>         unified-props document [2]?
>
>     And yes, cellular addresses "should" also be ALTO entities. But
>     let's delay the answer to this question and see the following
>     questions first.
>
>         Why do we have legacy identifiers like 'ipv4' and 'ipv6' being
>         registered in two registries, i.e., in the registries of [1]
>         and [2]?
>
>         In fact, why do we have a ALTO Entity Domain Registry in [2]
>         at all?
>
>     Why we introduce a new Registry? Because the key idea is to move
>     the property map service from endpoint scope to the more general
>     scope (which we call "entity domain" in the draft).
>
>     So,
>     1) in this general scope, *an entity MAY or MAY NOT be an
>     endpoint*. For example, "pid" is introduced as an entity domain,
>     but it is not an endpoint address type. To allow this, we need
>     this new registry.
>     2) But to cover the capability of the endpoint property service,
>     *an endpoint MUST be an entity*. As the result, "ipv4" and "ipv6"
>     are registered in both "ALTO Address Type Register" and "ALTO
>     Entity Domain Registry".
>
>     Now let's go back to the question "are cellular addresses ALTO
>     entities?". Sure, as they are ALTO endpoint addresses, they MUST
>     be ALTO entities. So they MUST be registered in the "ALTO Entity
>     Domain Registry".
>
>         I am afraid I am missing something ... can you please elaborate?
>
>     Is it clear now? Do we agree on this? Or Sabine and Richad want to
>     say anything?
>
>     I think we need to well define the process of the ALTO Entity
>     Domain Registry to guarantee the syntax and semantics of the same
>     indentifier registered in both Registries are consistent. And I
>     think this may be a missing item in the current unified-props
>     draft. If we fix this part, the draft should be ready.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Jensen
>
>
>         [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7285#section-14.4
>         [2]
>         https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-01#section-9.2
>
>         Thanks,
>
>         On 02/26/2018 10:18 AM, Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia -
>         FR/Paris-Saclay) wrote:
>         > Hi Richard,
>         >
>         > I agree, the Unified Property draft is definitely a good
>         placeholder for
>         > the cellular addresses. Domain and entities are already
>         defined in
>         >
>         https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-randriamasy-alto-cellular-adresses-01
>         > . So how about in a next step, we consider pouring the
>         content of the
>         > latter draft in the UP draft and in a further step propose a
>         list of
>         > properties, while looking at other WG to see whether they
>         already
>         > specified any?
>
>         - vijay
>         --
>         Vijay K. Gurbani / vijay.gurbani@nokia.com
>         <mailto:vijay.gurbani@nokia.com>
>         Network Data Science, Nokia Networks
>         Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         alto mailing list
>         alto@ietf.org <mailto:alto@ietf.org>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto