Dear ALTO WG and chairs and area directors,

The document draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-24 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-24.txt 
) has now entered AUTH48 and is on its way to be published as RFC 9240,  once 
it has been reviewed and approved by all coauthors.

In draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-24  - Section 10.9. Filtered Property Map 
for ANEs Example #5,  there is an issue, regarding the ANEs name format, on 
which we would like to have your thoughts and WG chair and area director 
guidance.
Two example ANEs are provided in  Section 10.9.: ".ane:dc45.srv9" and 
".ane:dc6.srv-cluster8".
That is, their ANE names are respectively: "dc45.srv9" and "dc6.srv-cluster8" 
and both include the '.' separator (U+002E).

- The ANE name format is specified in draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-25: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-25.txt 
Section 6.1 ANE name.
"An ANE Name is encoded as a JSON string with the same format as that of the 
type PIDName (Section 10.1 of [RFC7285]) "

- In Section 10.1 of [RFC7285] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7285
"A PID Name is encoded as a JSON string. The string MUST be no more than 64 
characters, and it MUST NOT contain characters other than US- ASCII 
alphanumeric characters (U+0030-U+0039, U+0041-U+005A, and U+0061-U+007A), the 
hyphen ('-', U+002D), the colon (':', U+003A), the at sign ('@', code point 
U+0040), the low line ('_', U+005F), or the '.' separator (U+002E).
The '.' separator is reserved for future use and MUST NOT be used unless 
specifically indicated in this document, or an extension document."

Since Section 6.1 ANE name of draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-25 does not 
explicitly allow the '.' separator (U+002E), the example ANE names provided in 
Section 10.9.of draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-24 are illegal.

To solve this issue, three options have been identified:
---------- OPTION 1: correct the examples in  Section 10.9. of  
draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-24, with for instance:
OLD
".ane:dc45.srv9" and ".ane:dc6.srv-cluster8"
NEW
".ane:dc45_srv9" and ".ane:dc6_srv-cluster8"  OR ".ane:dc45-srv9" and 
".ane:dc6-srvcluster8"

---------- OPTION 2: relax the ANE name format in Section 6.1 ANE name of 
draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-25.
Given that PV is as well in the RFC Ed Queue, this may be too late or too 
complicated at this stage.  After all, an ANE name and a PID name are to be 
interpreted as a string. On the other hand, upon discussions with the PV 
co-authors, there is no  particular reason to forbid '.'.
The text of section 6.1 of draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-25 may be updated as 
follows:

OLD
An ANE Name is encoded as a JSON string with the same format as that
of the type PIDName (Section 10.1 of [RFC7285]).
The type ANEName is used in this document to indicate a string of
this format.

NEW
An ANE Name is encoded as a JSON string with the same format as that
of the type PIDName (Section 10.1 of [RFC7285]).
The type ANEName is used in this document to indicate a string of
this format.
This document allows to use the '.' separator (U+002E).

---------- OPTION 3: correct the examples in  Section 10.9. of UP with for 
instance +  propose extensions on ANE name format in future use cases.

What do you recommend?
Thanks a lot in advance
Sabine and co-authors
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

Reply via email to