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

[Jensen Zhang <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>
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 / [e-mail]
> Network Data Science, Nokia Networks
> Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>