Thanks for resuming the issue. We surely need to wrap up the unified
properties draft. Let me see if I understand your proposal.
mapped" are the same thing. All of them just infer that the entities in the
mapping key or as the mapping value. But I have the following questions for
1. For the "pid-property-map" example, if we only consider the
2. Even if following your rule, I think it is still hard for the client to
interpret the property map correctly. Let's take your second example
"filtered-cdnifci-pid-property-map" to explain the issue. How the client
3. And if only follow your rule, the empty "uses" member is always valid.
4. If two domain entities or domain-specific properties depend on different
interpret them.
1. We need some rule to make sure the client can infer the type of the
map. It means each pair of entity-domain and property has fixed dependent
resource types.
2. Only the entity-domain property pairs depending on the same types of
resources can be provided in the same property map.
Post by Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)Hi Jensen and all,
Resuming on the resources dependency issue, to ensure consistency of the
"uses" member of an IRD information resource,
[draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new] should have a rule to guide the
composition of resources WRT "used" resources. Would the design below
address this ?
Thanks,
Sabine
--------------------------------------------------------
A Client Looking at a property map resource will interpret all the
properties listed in the "prop-types" member as available for entities in
all of the domains listed in "domain-types". Therefore, the "uses" member
of a property map information resource must be consistent with its
"entity-domain-types" member.
This means that each of the resources listed in the "uses" member of an
information resource is compatible with all the elements listed in its
"entity-domain-types" member. Where a used resource is defined as
compatible with the "entity-domain-types" of an information resource it
provides information that can be directly mapped with all members of its
"entity-domain-types" field.
This can be ensured by the following rule: each resource of the "uses"
field of a property map resource MUST provide information that can be
directly mapped with entities of all the members of its
"entity-domain-types" field.
--- Example of consistent "uses" member
In the example IRD shown section 7.3 of
- resource "pid-property-map" uses "default-network-map" and provides
information for "entity-domain-types" : [ "ipv4", "ipv6" ],
- resource "location-property-map" uses "default-network-map" and provides
information for "entity-domain-types" : [ "pid" ].
"default-network-map" maps a PID with sets of ipv4 ot ipv6 addresses. So,
for both information resources, there is a direct mapping between
information in the "default-network-map" and entities in all of their
domain types, resp. ["ipv4", "ipv6"] for the former and "pid" for the
latter. Thus the used resource "default-network-map" is compatible with all
of their "entity-domain-types".
--- Example of composition of property map resources w.r.t. "used" resources
If a Server wants to expose "cdni-fci-capabilities" and "pid" properties
for entities in the "ipv4", "ipv6", "countrycode" and "asn" entity domains,
because PIDs cannot be directly mapped to entities in the "countrycode" and
"filtered-cdnifci-property-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/propmap/filtered/cdnifci
",
"media-type" : "application/alto-propmap+json",
"accepts" : "application/alto-propmapparams+json",
"uses" : [ "my-default-cdnifci-map" ]
"capabilities" : {
"entity-domain-types" : [ "ipv4", "ipv6",
"countrycode", "asn" ],
"prop-types" : [ "cdni-fci-capabilities" ]
}
},
"filtered-cdnifci-pid-property-map" : {
"uri" : "
http://alto.example.com/propmap/lookup/cdnifci-pid",
"media-type" : "application/alto-propmap+json",
"accepts" : "application/alto-propmapparams+json",
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map",
"my-default-cdnifci-map" ]
"capabilities" : {
"entity-domain-types" : [ "ipv4", "ipv6" ],
"prop-types" : [ "cdni-fci-capabilities", "pid" ]
}
}
(Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)
*Sent:* Friday, November 02, 2018 9:48 PM
*Subject:* Re: [alto] Resume Discussion about the Remaining Issue of
draft-ietf-alto-unified-props
Hi Jensen,
Thanks for bringing the [draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-03]
example that actually does have a case with 2 used resources and the
ambiguity problem you are pointing.
I would actually also like the insight of the CDNI draft authors on my answer.
(In the examples, I corrected some typos with Upper Case letters).
Thanks, please see below.
Sabine
[draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-03] provides an example
POST /propmap/lookup/cdnifci-pid HTTP/1.1
...
{
"entities": [
"ipv4:192.0.2.0/24",
"ipv6:2001:db8::/32"
],
"properties": [ "cdni-fci-capabilities", "pid" ]
}
...
"dependent-vtags": [
{"resource-id": "my-default-cdnifci-map",
"tag": "7915dc0290c2705481c491a2b4ffbec482b3cf62"},
{"resource-id": "my-default-networkmap",
"tag": "7915dc0290c2705481c491a2b4ffbec482b3cf63"}
]
...
and provides values for both properties "cdni-fci-capabilities" and "pid"..
The request is fine because these 2 properties can be defined on entities
in the requested domains ipv4 and ipv6.
However, the corresponding information resource at "uri"
./propmap/lookup/cdnifci-pid is specified in the example IRD section 3.7.1
"filtered-cdnifci-property-map"
with
"capabilities" : {
"domain-types" : [ "ipv4", "ipv6", "couNtrycode", "asn" ],
"prop-types" : [ "cdni-fci-capabilities", "pid" ]
}
The "uses" member is missing but the response in the example transaction
hints that they are the 2 maps listed in the example response.
The problem with the capabilities of "filtered-cdnifci-property-map" is
that one understands that for instance a "pid" property can be defined on
entities in the "couNtrycode" and "asn" domains, which is not possible.
Therefore, a way to avoid this ambiguity would be to decompose resource
"filtered-cdnifci-property-map" W.R.T. so to say compatible "used"
"filtered-cdnifci-property-map" : {
"uri" : "http://alto.example.com/propmap/filtered/cdnifci
",
"media-type" : "application/alto-propmap+json",
"accepts" : "application/alto-propmapparams+json",
"uses" : [ "my-default-cdnifci-map" ]
"capabilities" : {
"ENTITY-domain-types" : [ "ipv4", "ipv6",
"couNtrycode", "asn" ],
"prop-types" : [ "cdni-fci-capabilities" ]
}
},
"filtered-cdnifci-property-map" : {
"uri" : "
http://alto.example.com/propmap/lookup/cdnifci-pid",
"media-type" : "application/alto-propmap+json",
"accEPts" : "application/alto-propmapparams+json",
"uses" : [ "my-default-network-map",
"my-default-cdnifci-map" ]
"capabilities" : {
"ENTITY-domain-types" : [ "ipv4", "ipv6" ],
"prop-types" : [ "cdni-fci-capabilities", "pid" ]
}
},
And [draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new] should have a rule to guide the
"Each of the resources listed in the "uses" member of an information
resource MUST be compatible with all the elements listed in its
"entity-domain-types" member. Where a "used" resource is defined as
compatible if it provides information that can be mapped to all the listed
entity domain types."
- resources "pid-property-map" and "location-property-map" both use
"default-network-map" which provides information mapped to
"entity-domain-types" "ipv4", "ipv6" in the former and "pid" in the latter.
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 24, 2018 1:12 PM
*To:* Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) <
*Subject:* Re: [alto] Resume Discussion about the Remaining Issue of
draft-ietf-alto-unified-props
Hi Sabine,
Thanks for your feedback. See my comments inline.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 1:21 AM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia -
Hi Jensen,
Regarding the second point on an unambiguous way to associate a property
map and the information resource it uses, I may have missed something and
"uses": ["networkmap1", "pv-costmap1"],
"capabilities": {
"entity-domains": ["ipv4", "ipv6", "ane"],
"properties": ["pid"]
}
Independently of the âusesâ member, just looking at the capabilities, I
Client can in particular request the âpidâ property of an entity in the
âaneâ domain.
Which by the way assumes no entity is a link with endpoints in different PIDs.
As a PIDs is defined in RFC7285 section 5.1 as a set of endpoint
addresses, does this document extend this set to entity addresses?
Good point. Although we can consider to extend the semantics of PIDs, it
is not what this document wants. It is my fault. I took a bad example.
The initial design of this extension was to solve ambiguities by having
one âusedâ resource per property map, thus âsplittingâ property maps w.r.t.
âusedâ maps, see v00 section 2.6 : âInstead of defining the dependency by
qualifying the property name, this document attaches the dependency to the
property map as a whole. Thus all properties in a given property map depend
on the same resource."
Would you have a concrete example where retrieving a property on entities
in a domain requires to both know a network map and a cost-map?
Now I understand your concern. I agree that we need a reasonable example.
I want to take an example to show that one property on entities in a domain
may depend on more than one ALTO resources. But based on our existing
standard drafts, we do not have a reasonable example so far.
But I do think it is necessary to revise the draft to support this. Even
there is no existing standard example requiring multiple dependencies, it
is still possible to happen in the future. If we don't want to make the
draft obsolete very soon, we need to take care. And actually, I find the
cdni footprint property map proposed in
draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto may be a reasonable example.
Before we discuss the property map example, let's clarify one basic concept: property
Without the context of the entity domain, the concept "property" cannot be
understood. So in this document, we shouldn't use the term "property"
independently.
For example,
the pid property - Invalid
the pid property of the entity in ipv4 domain - Valid
the pid property of the ipv4 entity - Valid
So the statement "all properties in a given property map depend on the
same resource" is not invalid. We should revise it as "all properties of
any entities in a given property map ..."
Now we see the example of the fci footprint property map. From
draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto, an ALTO server can provide the
"cdni-fci-capabilities" property for the cdni footprint entities. In the
same property map, the "cdni-fci-capabilities" property values of the cdni
footprint entities should depend on the same cdni-fci-map.
But there is no entity domain called "cdni footprint". From RFC8006, the
cdni footprint can be ipv4cidr, ipv6cidr, asn and countrycode. As ALTO can
provides the PID entity to express a set of ipv4cidr and ipv6cidr, we can
leverage it. So we can consider the following cdni footprint property map
"cdnifci-prop-map": {
"uri": "http://alto.example.com/propmap/full/cdnifci",
"media-type": "application/alto-propmap+json",
"capabilities": {
"entity-domains": ["pid"],
"properties": ["cdni-fci-capabilities"]
},
"uses": [...]
}
What the "uses" of this property map should be? The client should have a
network-map to understand what a PID entity is. Then the client should have
a cdni-fci-map to understand what the cdni-fci-capabilities of a PID entity
is. So to interpret this property map, the client requires two ALTO
resources.
I believe it is not a special case. In the future, we may have another
property map for the entity-domain "A" and the property "P". The entity in
domain A depends on the resource R1, and the property P of the entity in
domain A depends on the resource R2. So finally, the property P of the
entity in domain A depends on R1 and R2.
Do you think it is reasonable?
Best,
Jensen
Thanks,
Sabine
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 26, 2018 3:15 PM
*Subject:* [alto] Resume Discussion about the Remaining Issue of
draft-ietf-alto-unified-props
Hi ALTOer,
During IETF 102, we agree that the unified properties draft is important
and need to be processed first.. From the update which we presented at IETF
102, the latest draft has been almost stable. But there are still two
1. The response of filtered property map query for address blocks.
2. The resource dependencies declaration.
For the first point, we presented the issue and the potential solution
during IETF 102 (p12-p13 of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides-102-alto-alto-unified-properties-00.pdf).
The proposed solution should be reasonable. The authors are updating the
draft and including it.
But for the second point, we have not figured out a reasonable solution.
So I want to involve all of the related people to discuss this part.
Briefly, the second point is unclear because the "uses" attribute of a
unified property resource may have ambiguity from the current
"uses": ["networkmap1", "pv-costmap1"],
"capabilities": {
"entity-domains": ["ipv4", "ipv6", "ane"],
"properties": ["pid"]
}
Based on the current draft, the "uses" attribute is "An array with the
resource ID(s) of resource(s) with which the entity domains in this map are
associated", the client can have several different understandings in this
example: (1) all the entities in this property map depend on networkmap1 or
pv-costmap1; (2) entities in ipv4 and ipv6 domain depend on networkmap1,
and entities in ane domain depend on pv-costmap1; (3) entities in ipv4
domain depend on networkmap1, entities in ipv6 domain depend on
pv-costmap1, entities in ane domain have no dependency. (4) ...
But all those understandings are not correct. The understanding the server
expects should be: the PID property values of all entities in this map
depend on networkmap1; the entities in ane domain depend on pv-costmap1.
To make the client can understand the resource dependencies of a property
map correctly, we should modify the specification of its "uses" attribute..
1. Each combination of "entity-domain" and "property" SHOULD specify its
dependent resource type explicitly. For example, <ipv4, pid> or <ipv6, pid>
depends on a network map; <ane, pid> depends on a network map and a cost
map.
2. Each combination of "entity-domain" and "property" SHOULD specify how
to use the dependent resources to interpret this combination. For example,
for <pid4, pid>, the dependent network map is used to validate and
interpret the pid property values; for <ane, pid>, the dependent cost map
is used to validate and interpret the entities in ane domain, and the
dependent network map is used to validate and interpret the pid property
values.
If we agree on these two proposals, they will be required for all the
registered ALTO Entity Domains and ALTO Properties, and the future ones. It
may be a critical change but may be necessary..
Do we have any better solution to make the resource dependency declaration
clear? I will appreciate people sharing thoughts..
Best regards,
Jensen