Agreed - thanks for pointing this out Wendy and your proposed text sounds great.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Y. Richard Yang <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 26, 2013 2:48 PM, "Wendy Roome" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Does that mean that an ECS should NOT be declared as "using" a > particular map? That works for me. That would mean the server is free to > select the "appropriate" map for that set of endpoints. Or some other > mechanism altogether. > > Yes. Because if "using" does indicate one network, it has no operational > meaning and probably only causes confusion. > > > But if so, the protocol should say that. How about replacing the second > paragraph of {10.4.1} with the following (additions delimited by **): > > > > "It is important to note that although this resource allows an ALTO > Server to reveal costs between individual endpoints, an ALTO Server is not > required to do so. A simple alternative would be to compute the cost > between two endpoints as the cost between the PIDs corresponding to the > endpoints, **using one of the network maps defined by the server**. See > Section 14.3 for additional details. > > > > "**Although the Endpoint Cost resource may be based on a specific > network map, the resource MUST NOT be declared as depending on that network > map (see the "uses" attribute in Section 8.5.2).**" > > The wording reads fine to me, and I support integrate it to -18. > > Thanks a lot! > > Richard > > > > > > > > > From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email protected]> > > Date: Fri, July 26, 2013 14:30 > > To: Wendy Roome <[email protected]> > > Cc: IETF ALTO <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [alto] Endpoint Cost Service & Network Maps > > > > Hi Wendy, > > > > Another good observation. If I remember the intension, the "omission" > was intentional. Given your feedback, I think we should add a sentence to > say that ECS has internal implementation flexibility, using publicly > announced network/cost maps, internal maps, or other mechanisms. > > > > Richard > > > > On Jul 26, 2013 2:05 PM, "Wendy Roome" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Does it make sense to allow an Endpoint Cost Service (ECS) resource to > >> "use" a Network Map resource? > >> > >> If it does, then that ECS is equivalent resolving the endpoints to PIDs > >> with that map, and getting the costs from the associated cost map. > >> > >> But if an ECS resource does not "use" a network map, then that ECS is > >> based on some unspecified source of cost data. It might use one of the > >> network & cost maps, or it might use some other mechanism altogether. > >> > >> As far as I can tell, the current draft doesn't say anything about this > -- > >> it neither forbids nor requires an ECS to depend on a network map. The > >> only guideline is that the ECS example in {8.5.4} doesn't have a "uses" > >> attribute. But I wasn't sure if that omission was intentional. > >> > >> - Wendy Roome > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> alto mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto > > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto > >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
