Re: [alto] PID Properties in ALTO

I'm fine with leaving this as an extension, I agree it falls outside
of the core set of functionality and could easily be done as an
extension. Objections to that?

Rich

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Robert Varga <robert.varga@pantheon.sk> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree we should support it. I am just not sure we need it the base
> protocol, though, as it can easily be specified as an extension.
>
> Bye,
> Robert
>
> On 05/27/11 18:48, Richard Alimi wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Okay, third and final thread for discussion today :)  Another proposed
>> extension to the ALTO protocol has been to associate properties (like
>> we currently have with Endpoints) with PIDs.
>>
>> A proposed use case in draft-penno-alto-cdn was to indicate what types
>> of endpoints lived within a single PID. A more general mechanism to
>> support this would be to allow properties to be associated with a PID
>> as whole. In one light, this could be seen as an efficient way to
>> query for the properties of all endpoints within a PID (in which
>> membership in the PID determines the value of the property). It could
>> also be used to attach some semantic meaning to a PID (instead of
>> being an opaque identifier) in particular deployments.
>>
>> One way to support this would be to provide an additional "PID
>> Property" service, with a similar structure to the Endpoint Property
>> Service. Basically, it would amount to defining a registry, allowing
>> an ALTO Server to indicate its supported properties via capabilities,
>> defining encodings for the request and response, etc.
>>
>> Thoughts about supporting this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rich
>> _______________________________________________
>> alto mailing list
>> alto@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>
>
> --
> Robert Varga
> Pantheon Technologies, s.r.o.
> Mlynske Nivy 56
> 831 05 Bratislava
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>