Subject: [Crisp] suggested Agenda for CRISP mtg in Seoul

From: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 08:59:11 -0800 (PST)

Now is your chance to add or edit...

thx,
A.

	Agenda for CRISP Working Group Meeting
		IETF 59 - Seoul, Korea
	Tuesday, March 2, 0900-1130, Room Sapphire 1

 o Welcome, Agenda Bashing, Status Update
	Chairs - 10 min

 o Update on latest drafts:
	 draft-ietf-crisp-iris-core-05.txt
	 draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dreg-05.txt
	 draft-ietf-crisp-iris-beep-05.txt

   Changes centered around XML mechanics:
	Andy Newton - 30 min

   Changes centered around internationalization and language issues:
     	Marcos Sanz - 30 min

 o Next Steps - 10 min

 o Other topics (if any arise)

_______________________________________________
Crisp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp

---

From: Cathy Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:18:12 -0500 (EST)

I'd like to request a slot for about 15-20 minutes. I won't be
there, but Ed Lewis has agreed to present my slides, which explain
some changes that were made to the areg draft.

Thanks,
Cathy Murphy

---

From: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:19:46 -0800 (PST)

GREAT! I wasn't sure we'd have any areg-y rep.  Thanks!

A.

---

From: Engin Gunduz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:08:11 +0100

Hi,

Can we have a couple of minutes to talk about "nesting" text
for IP ranges?  The text is an addition proposal for IRN requirements
and IRIS AREG documents. In fact Cathy has already incorporated
terminology part into IRIS AREG draft.

We will basically say that the text is available and request for
review, a couple of minutes would be enough...

I guess the text wasn't circulated in this list, so I'm attaching it
below.
-engin

--
Engin Gunduz
RIPE NCC Software Engineering Department

===================================================

Terminology: More specific, most specific, less specific,
  least specific.
 More specific: Given two networks, A and B, A is more specific
   than B if network B includes all space of network A, and if
   network B is larger than network A.
 Less specific: Opposite of more specific.  The network
   B is less specific than network A if network A's all space
   is included in network B and if network A is smaller than
   network B.
 Most specific: Given a set of networks, the network or networks 
   that are more specific than zero or more of other networks
   in the set, and that are not a less specific of any of the
   networks in the set.
 Least specific: Given a set of networks, the network or networks
   that are not more specific to any of the other networks in
   the set.

Examples:

+-------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                       |
| Given the networks A, B, C and D as follows:          |
|                                                       |
|    A    |---------------------------------|           |
|    B                    |-----------------|           |
|    C                       |---------|                |
|    D      |-------|                                   |
|                                                       |
|                                                       |
| The network A is less specific than B, C and D.       |
| The network B is more specific than A.                |
| Among these four networks, A is the least specific,   |
|   and C and D are the most specific networks.         |
|                                                       |
+-------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                       | 
| Given the networks E, F and G:                        |
|                                                       |
|    E   |----------|                                   |
|    F                |--------------|                  |
|    G     |---|                                        |
|                                                       | 
| The networks E and F are least specific networks.     |
| The networks F and G are most specific networks.      |
|                                                       | 
+-------------------------------------------------------+

The following definitions assume that there are no overlapping
networks in the database.  A network overlaps with another
one when they encompass each other's space partially. 
Examples:

  A   |---------------------|
  B       |----------------------------|

Here, the networks A and B are overlapping networks because network
A encompasses network B's space partially and network B encompasses
network A's space partially.

  C   |------------------|
  D   |---------|

Here, the networks C and D are NOT overlapping networks,
because even if network D encompasses a part of network C's
space, network C does not encompass network D's space partially
(it encompasses network D completely).

The protocol MUST NOT assume that there can be only one network with
a given range.  That is, the address directory can contain more than
one network with the same range.  They are said to be exact match
networks.

Parent/child relationship in the internet address directory is
unidirectional.  That is, there might also be parent/child relationship
with exact match networks, but a network cannot be a parent and a child
of its exact match network at the same time.

Nested matching searches:

====
[1] Given a range, find all the networks that contain that range (ie, all
less specifics and exact matches).  These networks are the networks
that fulfill the following condition:

   (start(network) <= start(search)) AND
   (end(network) >= end(search))

The protocol SHOULD support this search.

The protocol MUST support this search with network handle.

====
[2] Given a range, find only the most specific network that contains 
that range (could be multiple networks, but usually single);
This is the set of networks from [1], with the provision
that: no network in the return set is contained by any other
network in the set.  If there are exact match networks in the
set from [1], they both must appear in the result set as well.
The protocol MUST support this search.

The protocol MUST support this search with network handle.

====
[3] Given a range, find all the networks that are fully within that 
range.  The set must not contain an exact match:

   (start(network) >= start(search)) AND
   (end(network) <= end(search)) AND
   NOT ((start(network) = start(search)) AND
        (end(network) = end(search)))

The protocol MAY support this search.

The protocol MAY support this search with network handle.

====
[4] Given a range, find only the least specific networks that are fully 
within that range.  This is the set of networks from [3], with the
provision that:
   no network in the return set contains any other network
   in the return set.

An example:

   X                                             Y

A  |------------------|
B                      |-------------------------|
C    |--------|
D                                    |---------|

Here, the search for least specific networks that are fully
within the range "X - Y" would return networks
A and B.  The result set would not contain C (because it
is contained by A) nor D (because it is contained by C).

The protocol MUST support this search.

The protocol MUST support this search with network handle.

====
[5] Given a range, find the network that begins and ends on the same IP 
addresses as the range ("exact match").

That is, the networks that fulfill the following condition:
   (start(network) = start(search)) AND
   (end(network) = end(search))

The protocol SHOULD support this search.

The protocol MUST support this search with network handle.

====
[6] Given a range, or single IP address, find the exact match network
if exists, and if not, perform the [2] search.

The protocol SHOULD support this search.

The protocol MUST support this search with network handle.
====

For the cases [1]-[6], if a network handle is given as the input,
then the server must find the network with this handle, and then perform
the specified search for its range.  If there are multiple networks with
that handle, then the search must be performed for each network and
the results must be merged, and duplicates in the result set must be
eliminated.

Parent-child relationship searches:
[7] Given a network handle, find the network that is the direct (one
level up) parent of the network with the given handle.  As network
handles may not be unique, this search might return multiple networks.

The protocol MUST support this search.

[8] Given a network handle, find the network or networks that are
direct (one level down) children of the network with the handle given.
As network handles may not be unique, this search might return 
children of multiple networks.

The protocol MUST support this search.

$Id: CRISP-nesting-text.txt,v 1.5 2004/02/04 13:28:33 engin Exp $
======================================