[alto] High level comments on draft-roome-alto-unified-props-00

["Y. Richard Yang" <[e-mail]>]

Wendy, all,

I just read draft draft-roome-alto-unified-props-00 and liked it a lot. It
is very well written, as Wendy always does, and I recommend that many of
you read this design.

Personally, I see this design as a good candidate as a WG item. Before
making up my mind, I see benefits in discussing two high level design
decisions:
1. Hierarchy of general domains. In the current design, this issue already
appears in the ipv4 and ipv6 domains. The approach that the draft adopts is
longest prefix matching (LPM); see Section 3.1.3.. This can be considered
as smallest containing set, if we see each CIDR as a set, and such sets
form a directed acyclic graph. Q: Does it make sense for the document to go
as far as defining this general principle, instead of the specific LPM?

2. Consistency of the same property across domains. Section 3.2.4 gives one
example of such a case. Q: Is this a specific decision for two specific
domains, or the general principle is no across domain consistency?

Cheers,
Richard
-