Hi Bill, Thanks again for the comments.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Bill Roome <[email protected]> wrote: > Draft 8 says this about ordinal costs: > > 5.1.2.2. Cost Mode: ordinal > This Cost Mode is indicated by the string ¹ordinal¹. This mode > indicates that the costs values to a set of Destination Network > Locations from a particular Source Network Location are a ranking, > with lower values indicating a higher preference. > > > But does that mean ordinals MUST be the integers 1, 2, 3, etc? Or can they > be any non-negative values, and lower means higher rank? > > My concern is that a server might assume the latter. Then for simplicity, > if a client asks for "ordinal" costs, the server could just return the > numerical costs, with mode declared as "ordinal." > > But a client might assume "ordinal" always means 1,2,3..., and might > search through the response to find the best cost -- which must be "1", > obviously. > > So I think the protocol spec should say either > > (a) Ordinals can be any non-negative values; they need not be the integers > 1, 2, 3, .... > > or else explicitly require > > (b) Ordinals must be the integers 1, 2, 3, .... > > I prefer (a) because it's simpler for the server, and because with (b), > we'd then have to define how to handle ties. Eg, is it "1,1,2", or > "1,1,3", or "1,2,3"? (Last means "ties not allowed"). Agreed that we need to be more specific here, and I would agree that (a) would be better. In particular, it should be reasonable for the clients to resolve ties. Then, if a server wishes to use a load-balancing technique, it can assign equivalent ranks to multiple destinations from a single source, and then that response can still be cached via normal mechanisms; the server doesn't need to regenerate responses to load-balance within the requirement of unique ordinal values. Any objections to this? > ----- > > Draft 8 says this about the parameters for the endpoint property service: > > 7.7.4.1.3. Input Parameters > object { > EndpointProperty properties<0..*>; > TypedEndpointAddr endpoints<0..*>; > } ReqEndpointProp; > > > I assume "properties<0..*>" means the property names are optional. In that > case should the server return all props for those endpoints? Or is that an > error? > > I believe "endpoints<0..*>" is a typo, and should be "endpoints<1..*>". Yes - this is something that is going to be in the next revision of the document. We intend to get the updated version together at some point today. Thanks, Rich > > - Bill 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
