[drinks] Following today's meeting
Mickael Marrache <mickaelmarrache@gmail.com> Wed, 24 April 2013 18:51 UTC
Return-Path: <mickaelmarrache@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0171421F90EB for <drinks@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.499, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vhwTQfyg60qr for <drinks@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com (mail-lb0-f181.google.com [209.85.217.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A7B21F8F0F for <drinks@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id r11so2093765lbv.12 for <drinks@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=z6sNDBNtJJFveSeC5o2mOTA9QxNmP7sb+od/GrcYkMA=; b=YEJH9k6L83/pvQbwOuKXqGc78CO3FnUwiJ0KriZK1+lwQY2KUU7/WicH/QVe1AzCyT ppPOd9zU5B16exHMAbG8PvYMhjoRW2/8oLGmVumckXGv7gX4PRZYMflwFcE0vMmDeGus Womqfw60mLmbP5aGWu+CI/DA97qHed/lOnxtBBwuYyETWfwYkQTF6dC+41bSevWlYmgj iiHgkytd7JW95HHT8zm0rNuB0BWqPP0ePUmn/TXcUYrE63Q54fY0ivLl6u3UVmYGmJFC LFJngUZyQZul7J2aZyQfoQGEu/+sHmn1Bm5846MzIPIzwB00Zd4nxHCRwJar1/D1HWNZ d2/Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.6.162 with SMTP id c2mr18344434laa.20.1366829485928; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.184.20 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:51:25 +0300
Message-ID: <CA+=4G23E5J4pS8x_kW90pkbN1qpfykdZyZghen65FYg3bX7AyQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mickael Marrache <mickaelmarrache@gmail.com>
To: drinks@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013d139efa345804db1fc9dc"
Subject: [drinks] Following today's meeting
X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG <drinks.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/drinks>, <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/drinks>
List-Post: <mailto:drinks@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks>, <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:51:52 -0000
Hi, During the call, we agreed that the cardinality on the DG side of the PubId-DG association should be 0..1 instead of 0...n. We also agreed that this cardinality should not be interpreted as limiting a PI to be associated to at most one DG. However, this cardinality should be interpreted as limiting a PI instance to be associated to at most one DG. Thus, for example, the "same" telephone number may be associated to multiple DGs by the use of multiple TN instances. This way is made possible by including the dgName element as part of the key, so that for a given registrant and a given value (e.g. tn, tnp, start/end...), different values for the dgName element are allowed. I think that the dgName element should not be part of the key because it is optional. While it may be acceptable for a key attribute to be optional in some cases, I think it's relatively rare. Also, it becomes more difficult to define a URI for each public identifier concrete type. For example, an obvious URI for a TN resource would represent the key attributes as path parameters such as /rant/{rant}/TN/dgName/{dgName}/tn/{tn}. However, dgName is optional and may not have a value. We can solve this problem by using a special string to represent the absence of a value, or by using other types of URI parameters (e.g. query parameters), but I don't think it's the right way to go. What I proposed during the call was to exclude the dgName element from the key. So, there would be only one PI instance for a particular value, that is identified by the registrant that owns the PI, and the value of the PI (e.g. tn, tnp...). In order to allow a PI to be associated to multiple DGs, the maxOccurs attribute of the dgName element should be set to unbounded. The registrant organization would only deal with one instance for a given PI value. The URI for the TN resource would then be /rant/{rant}/TN/{tn}. Concerning the carrier-of-record concern, the question is: Is there a meaning to let a registrant organization provision the same PI (in terms of value) with different COR information? The current model allows such a feature by the use of multiple PI instances (thus, allowing multiple corInfos). If this is a real use case, the corInfo element should be an attribute of the PI-DG association since it is not intrisic to the PI itself but depends on an external factor (in this case, the association with a particular DG). Creating a new complex type DestGrpRefType that includes the DG key and the corInfo element would solve this issue. The list of dgName (ObjNameType) would become a list of dgRefs (DestGrpRefType). Not related to this question, there are two other points I raised in the mailing list: 1. The framework document states: "If the response to the Get operation includes object(s) that extend the BasicObjType, the Registry MUST include the 'cDate' and 'mDate', if applicable.". In the examples section in the SOAP document (section 10), for the Get examples, the elements cDate and mDate are not part of the returned responses. 2. According to the framework document, an egress route is added by the originating SSP to the registry. The originating SSP must be a peering organization of the SED group to which the egress route is associated. Thus, an egress route is an element owned by the originating SSP. The rant field of the egress route would then identify the originating SSP and not the owner of the SED group. Also, in the SOAP document in section 10.17, the rant field has the value iana-en:111 as expected. There is an error in the SOAP document in section 10.11. The rant field has the value iana-en:222 where it should have the value iana-en:111 that identifies SSP1. Also, a new version of the REST draft is available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-marrache-drinks-spp-protocol-rest-02. It would be great if you can take a look at it and comment. Thanks, Mickael
- [drinks] Following today's meeting Mickael Marrache
- Re: [drinks] Following today's meeting Cartwright, Ken
- Re: [drinks] Following today's meeting Mickael Marrache
- Re: [drinks] Following today's meeting Cartwright, Ken
- Re: [drinks] Following today's meeting Bhatia, Vikas
- Re: [drinks] Following today's meeting Cartwright, Ken