Re: [alto] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-04.txt

Jensen Zhang <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com> Mon, 09 July 2018 07:14 UTC

Return-Path: <jingxuan.n.zhang@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 3DE4B1292F1 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 00:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
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 mjqcYljQnamm for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 00:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22d.google.com (mail-yw0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22d]) (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 E80A112F1A6 for <alto@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 00:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id p129-v6so6198509ywg.7 for <alto@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3XcztfPXaBRoLN0dzSAFbzbjlL0KqL7DLsxBcPRlwZk=; b=fEjzchxQR8SnXuyOsp5+D/WESVqRVIeJ1g5FfQt1086UNiLxiXRvFDpD+CJ9qk7S+d Tgg0SkrLrqtc4n/tEhX0UVzX4KvbffEFEZoJQRQJhUsYZxFEJW5Mrf7Yo/hiIkySsHJK woqI821IpSy+fE6H209JHO1r+NKJ+SpbH7yrJ1bJjpch7ZHOcxaL5btiA/UbDfDE8tdk LMIFSBw0nQ9vomqfPXRRWEzjedWHsP1hS5VWYUgO128zDVYUo5gmAIQ8hoqIRfgxI4LP HUNXjNFD6LnNCjr3U+SvjW6qCrutPVUO8GC/j/GtXNZfr5ZFDjZdDsXQkK63Qxo21Era 4exA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3XcztfPXaBRoLN0dzSAFbzbjlL0KqL7DLsxBcPRlwZk=; b=f0ge0eZYdOlZ1UPK5nnYL4Y0p68agjQ8obQ8C2KU5Zs7US4/HTciSLOUnizwyaxPYD FT+/vYT423zGJqHerm0m5lBvRQXzYmTsMpk/brNh54Xxi6dj0Wdwo+WCWzCH9rpUDGJA 0p+uBeU6rNNlhJltidLNnw1erIcjMW9d9cskjL9Ho8ukTRp5VmQJBqxeaN/tYlJ5cZuo 0HLtM2QrcOTk1Y1I64qW2hNqBJuh4rqsa8Vp/CD8wLYWmIHQiUA5byYLKqtES/1e4z5r zxx2zpDW+2GnAp0czaq2gFL4w7Lt7DTSPEv0EI4tqpd0Af3rEybn3KnbQu5Js/nCJBED nNJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0SzgmLI/OrDjVm0jG1NNG7/OLjtEX2m18JGs28k2Mm4BpojYWv poi08vqYxNQgMOqE/AjoMKne+6AiFlr4D22Gg6A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfb5D043RvdhO/gHn87Khb/70c/OyRw+q4omAKlvYR4qLtBe/XD7uU6QLZQErGC7DfomWZpoXHEmHiiNTr9wPs=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:2706:: with SMTP id n6-v6mr9096765ywn.88.1531120446120; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <153029332051.30450.2848545429737582427@ietfa.amsl.com> <AM4PR07MB3236AE97292F3BF93E464D34954E0@AM4PR07MB3236.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOB1xS9jq9305VuF+uUj7z9kbMiF-YOj3x4OnxztpfxhLOHUgg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOB1xS9jq9305VuF+uUj7z9kbMiF-YOj3x4OnxztpfxhLOHUgg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jensen Zhang <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 03:13:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAbpuyq_TeBLznmTswT=mKjm_3aOtoxkg=9QW9Hd+_mKsWFHVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Qiao Xiang <xiangq27@gmail.com>
Cc: "Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Nozay)" <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com>, IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004ca68405708bc298"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/o00hgnFgQgjjCGIrh8NzDwX7WB4>
Subject: Re: [alto] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-04.txt
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 07:14:10 -0000

Hi Qiao,

Thanks for your review. Authors will consider your comments and update the
document soon. About the technical issues you mentioned, see my comments
inline:

Thanks,
Jensen

On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 11:16 AM Qiao Xiang <xiangq27@gmail.com>; wrote:

> Dear Sabine, Jensen and Dawn,
>
> I finished my review on Section 1-6 of the Unified Property draft. In the
> attached file,, all the comments are marked wtih "[qiao]". I will send
> out the reviews for the remaining sections soon.
>
> Most of my comments are related to consistency and clarity. However, there
> are two technical issues I want to emphasize here, to seek the opinions
> from you and other WG members:
>
> 1. In Section 4.4: in the PropertyMapCapabilities object to define the
> capabilities of a Property Map:  the types of entity domains and the types
> of properties provided in this map are each defined using a list,
> respectively. With such a spec, how should the client know which domain has
> which property? Consider the case where the server announces that it has a
> property map with two entity domains d1 and d2, and property p1 and p2. If
> the client wants to know the property of some entities in domain d1, it
> sends a filtered property map query to the server. But it turns out, the
> server only provides property p1 for domain d2. As such, the client gets a
> bunch of "null" or error code. Only by now the client knows that the server
> only provides property p1 for domain d2 entities, but a round-trip is
> wasted. Simple as this example is, it can turn into a much troubling
> scenario: imaging X (e.g., 10) domains and Y (e.g., 20) properties.
>
> One solution to fix this issue, proposed during my offline discussion with
> Jensen, is to redefine the PropertyMapCapabilities using an array of
> (entity, property) combination.
>
> Sure, we already discussed offline. But after that, I rethink about this
problem. In a single property map resource, the "prop-types" and the
"entity-domain-types" should be fully bound. So if an ALTO server wants to
provide property p1 and p2 for domain d1, and only property p1 for domain
d2, the best practice should be to separate domain d1 and d2 to different
property maps. Does it make sense?

Waiting for more comments from others.


> 2. In Section 6.3, the writing seems to only focus on the pid property of
> IP entities. But conceptually other entity domains may also have a "pid"
> property, right? I understand that this section is mainly to discuss the
> compatibility with the pid property provided by ALTO EPS service, but it
> should be stated clearly so that the readers would not be confused.
>
> Although we do not mention that "pid" property must bind with the IP
entities, I'm not sure whether we should emphasize this. Because in this
document, we only define IP domain and PID domain. And only IP domain may
own the "pid" property. If the future documents define another entity
domain owning a property called "pid", it can specify the semantics by
itself.


> Please let me know if you have any thoughts on these. Thanks.
>
>
> Best
> Qiao
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 2:11 PM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia -
> FR/Paris-Saclay) <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com>; wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> The main updates in this new version relate to the consistency procedure
>> between ALTO Address Type Registry and
>>  ALTO Entity Domain Registry as discussed during the ALTO WG session in
>> London. This is addressed in section 9.  IANA Considerations, where 9.2
>> specifies the ALTO Entity Domain Registry and 9.2.1. proposes an algorithm
>> to ensure consistency between both registries.
>>
>> Other updates include:
>> - in section 1. Introduction: a paragraph introducing ALTO Entity domains,
>> - In section 6.3, some rewording to clarify between "pid" and "PID" to
>> avoid headaches,
>> - section 7.3 example IRD: name update for the Endpoint property resource
>> - section 7.4: example transaction
>> - Section 10 References: updates and reformatting
>> - usage of expression "ALTO Entity Domain" throughout the document
>>
>> Your feeback will be highly appreciated
>>
>> Thanks
>> Sabine, Jensen, Dawn
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: alto [mailto:alto-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> internet-drafts@ietf.org
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 7:29 PM
>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>> Cc: alto@ietf.org
>> Subject: [alto] I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-04.txt
>>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization
>> WG of the IETF.
>>
>>         Title           : Unified Properties for the ALTO Protocol
>>         Authors         : Wendy Roome
>>                           Shiwei Dawn Chen
>>                           Sabine Randriamasy
>>                           Y. Richard Yang
>>                           Jingxuan Jensen Zhang
>>         Filename        : draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-04.txt
>>         Pages           : 30
>>         Date            : 2018-06-29
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    This document extends the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization
>>    (ALTO) Protocol [RFC7285] by generalizing the concept of "endpoint
>>    properties" to domains of other entities, and by presenting those
>>    properties as maps, similar to the network and cost maps in ALTO.
>>
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new/
>>
>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-04
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-04
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-04
>>
>>
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
>> tools.ietf.org.
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> alto mailing list
>> alto@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> alto mailing list
>> alto@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>>
>
>
> --
> Qiao Xiang
> Postdoctoral Fellow,
> Department of Computer Science,
> Yale University
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>