Subject: [alto] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-21: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 10:35:59 -0800

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-21: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Spencer Dawkins for his thoughtful review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/BcZimefF1WXXgcmg0qjc3P__EGg/ , and
thanks to the authors for addressing it.

I have two blocking comments, and some non blocking comments (to which I would
still appreciate answers) below.

Francesca

1. -----

Media type registration

FP: I haven't seen the media type being reviewed by the media-type mailing
list, as requested by RFC 6838. Before progressing the document, I would really
appreciate the authors to post the registrations to the media-type mailing list
for review.

2. -----

Sections 4.6.1, 12.2.2 and 12.3

FP: The use of the term "unique" when referred to media types and entity
domains (or properties) is confusing - it makes it sound as if the authors mean
that each different entity domain (or property) is to be associated with a
different unique media type, which doesn't seem to be the intent. As this is
related to the media type registration, I believe this should be clarified and
possibly checked with the media type experts (so it would be good to copy paste
the relevant text in the email to the media-type mailing list).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

3. -----

   identifier.  In this case, inheritance rules must specify how
   entities in "subsets" inherit property values from their "superset".
   For instance, if a property P is defined only for the entity set
   identified by address block "ipv4:192.0.1.0/24", the entity set
   identified by "ipv4:192.0.1.0/30" and thus included in the former
   set, may inherit the property P value from set "ipv4:192.0.1.0/24".

FP: Are the sets inverted  in the paragraph above? (should it be
"ipv4:192.0.1.0/24" inherits from "ipv4:192.0.1.0/30")

4. -----

Sections 5.1.1, 5.2.1

FP: As it is defined now, all Private Use type identifiers are not valid,
because they contain ":". I understand the intention, but it would be good to
clarify in the text.

5. -----

Section 5.1.2

FP: Please add a note specifying the syntax used and a reference to it (it's
enough to just mention it the first time it appears, so in this section).

6. -----

   they have the same value of the "ASN" property.  The same rule
   applies to the entities "ipv4:192.0.3.0/28" and "ipv4:192.0.3.0/28".

FP: I believe the second one should be "ipv4:192.0.3.16/28"

7. -----

     "properties" : [ "default-network-map.pid",
                      "alt-network-map.pid ]

FP: I validated the JSON examples (which I recommend to do) and this one is the
only one that didn't validate as this is missing a closing " after
"alt-network-map.pid.