I went over the basically-string types: PID name, resource id, tag, and cost-type name. The first two are restricted on length and legal chars while the second two are not. I believe that this is reasonable, since the first two may benefit from extension (e.g., hierarchy PIDs). Make sense?
Y On Sunday, April 19, 2015, Y. Richard Yang <[email protected]> wrote: > Wendy, > > I see the same. The formal definition is at the beginning of Sec. 9.2.2. > It is JSONString. I assume that an arbitrary long string may break a > parser. What other potential issues do you see? > > Thanks, > Richard > > On Friday, April 17, 2015, Wendy Roome <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> Does RFC 7285 define any restrictions on cost-type names? Eg, length or >> character set? >> >> I am referring to the names in the IRD meta for a combination of >> cost-metric & cost-mode. Eg, "num-routing" in >> >> "meta" : { >> "cost-types": { >> "num-routing": { >> "cost-mode" : "numerical", >> "cost-metric": "routingcost", >> "description": "My default" >> }, >> >> As near as I can tell, while we rigorously defined cost metric names, >> resource ids, and everything else, we missed cost-type names. >> >> - Wendy Roome >> >> > > -- > Richard > -- Richard
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
