Hi,
As said some time ago, I do support the idea. It is much better structured and
simplifies processing (at both sides, I'd say) And it posseses a taste close to
the good-ole MIME types I cannot avoiud to appreciate.
Will go through the detailed text later and provide comments (if any) but let's
get the ball rolling!
Be goode,
On 15 Feb 2013, at 21:23 , Wendy Roome wrote:
> To return to this issue, I suggest we unify them, so that we have Cost
> Types -- period. The "Mode" becomes a property of the Cost Type. So if a
> server provides numerical & ordinal routingcosts, it provides *two*
> separate Cost Types, say "routingcost" and "routingcost-ord".
>
> I believe the result will simplify both clients and servers, and make it
> easier for servers to introduce additional cost types.
>
> My suggestion is to extend the Information Resource Directory with a list
> of definitions for each Cost Type the server supports. Each Cost Type
> definition would give the name of the Cost Type, the mode, and other
> attributes. Currently the Information Resource Directory is a dictionary
> with one item, "resources". So I propose adding a second item named
> "cost-types," whose value is a list of cost-type definitions, as in
>
> "cost-types" : [
> {
> "name" : "routingcost",
> "value" : "number",
> "mode" : "numerical",
> "measures" : "delay",
> "description" : "Standard routing cost",
> }, {
> "name" : "hopcount",
> "value" : "number",
> "mode" : "numerical",
> "measures" : "hops",
> "description" : "Simple hop count",
> }, {
> "name" : "routingcost-ord",
> "value" : "number",
> "mode" : "ordinal",
> "measures" : "delay",
> "description" : "Ordinal routing cost",
> }
> ]
>
> Then pretty much delete every reference to a field named "cost-mode".
>
>
>
> To get the ball rolling, I've attached proposed replacements for
>
> Section 5.1. Cost Attributes
> Section 6.7.2. Encoding Section 6.7.3. Example
>
> If those don't survive the list server, let me know and I'll put them up
> on a web server.
>
> If y'all like this idea, I'd be happy to help with the editing.
>
> - Wendy Roome
>
>
>> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:08:23 +0000
>> From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repe...@cisco.com>
>> Subject: [alto] ALTO Protocol Outstanding Issue II: Unifying cost-mode
>> and cost-type to a single type
>>
>> Discussion II: Unifying cost-mode and cost-type to a single type
>>
>> e.g., routingcost-num and routingcost-ord
>>
>> Having a single type simples the protocol since there is just one
>> parameter when indicating cost. But it will impact current
>> implementations and might loose flexibility.
>>
>> Proposal: Leave it as is.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Reinaldo
>
> <sect-5-1.txt><sect-6-7-2.txt><sect-6-7-3.txt>_______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"
Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/
e-mail: di...@tid.es
Tel: +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
-----------------------------------------
________________________________
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace
situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and
receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
