Hi Ben, On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email protected]>wrote:
> Richard, > > On 9 Jul 2013, at 20:03, "Y. Richard Yang" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Rich, >> >> On 4 Jul 2013, at 07:29, Richard Alimi wrote: >> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 1 Jul 2013, at 19:34, Y. Richard Yang wrote: >> >> So it will be an item defined in "meta" of the IRD. Similar to current >> "cost-types", which defines mapping of names to cost types, this mapping >> will be from network map name/ID to URI. Is this what you have in mind? >> > >> > Basically, yes. >> > >> > I was thinking something simpler (without the need for another lookup >> table) - for each resource entry, we just add an 'id' attribute. >> >> > Just to confirm. The ID is for the resource, not the dependent resource. > > > I don't know what this means. > > I feel that this is more consistent. > > >> I think we're saying the same thing (when I replied to Richard I was >> working from memory and forget "meta" applies to the whole IRD), what I'm >> thinking is that an existing entry of: >> >> "resources" : [ >> { >> "uri" : "http://alto.example.com/networkmap";, >> "media-type" : "application/alto-networkmap+json" >> }, { >> "uri" : "http://alto.example.com/costmap/num/routingcost";, >> "media-type" : "application/alto-costmap+json", >> "capabilities" : { >> "cost-type-names" : [ "num-routing" ] >> } >> }] >> >> would become: >> >> "resources" : [ >> { >> "uri" : "http://alto.example.com/networkmap";, >> "media-type" : "application/alto-networkmap+json", >> "id" : "default-map" >> }, { >> "uri" : "http://alto.example.com/costmap/num/routingcost";, >> "media-type" : "application/alto-costmap+json", >> "id" : "default-map", >> > > If we make the consistent usage that each resource has an id, then the > line right above will be: > > "id": "default-costmap" > > > Overall, I support that we add an "id" field for each resource entry. I > would also like to add a "uses" attribute, just as a software package > system will do. > > > Ah I think I see what you mean. Let's take a step back as we may be > heading off on a tangent. > > The original problem was how to "link" a cost map to a network map in the > presence of multiple choices. Therefore the IRD entry for the cost map (and > the cost map itself) needs to include an identifier for the network map it > is associated with and the IRD entry for the associated network map (and > the network map itself) needs to include the same identifier. > > If you want to call the property in the cost map/IRD map something other > than id to make the different semantics clear (it is identifying the > associated network map and is not the identifier of the cost map itself) > I'm OK with that. > > Good to know that you are OK with this. Let's proceed this way then. > Introducing an identifier for each resource may make the entries look more > "consistent" but it's not clear to me how (or whether) they'd be used. If > folks think it's worthwhile I won't object but keeping things simple helps > keep the usage clear. > One usage that I have in mind is that later, when we build up more services, for example, on top of cost map, then the application or higher-level service can use the costmap id to identify the costmap that serves as the base. More specifically, one item that I am working on is topology service and even make ALTO as a base for actions. For example, an app fetches a topology, and computes a route. When the app submits the request to instantiate the route, the app should identify the map used (by using both id and vtag) so that the network can retrieve the corresponding topology. At this moment, we can take down the path of allowing every resource entry with an id, but if an id is not used, it may not need to appear. How does this sound? Richard > > Ben > > Hence, the preceding example becomes: > > "resources" : [ > { > "uri" : "http://alto.example.com/networkmap";, > "media-type" : "application/alto-networkmap+json", > "id" : "default-networkmap" > }, { > "uri" : "http://alto.example.com/costmap/num/routingcost";, > "media-type" : "application/alto-costmap+json", > "id" : "default-costmap", > "uses": ["default-map"] > "capabilities" : { > "cost-type-names" : [ "num-routing" ] > } > }] > > For the content of each individual resource, we include both the id and > version tag, as Rich's earlier proposal. In other words, now costmap can > also have version tags. The use case that I am thinking is that > applications can build on top of cost maps, and hence can know if the cost > map has changed from the previous version fetched. > > Richard > > > > > > >> "capabilities" : { >> "cost-type-names" : [ "num-routing" ] >> } >> }] >> >> Which I think is the same as what you are suggesting. >> >> Ben >> >> >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
