On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani <[email protected]> wrote:
> In reference to the choices Richard presented in
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto/current/msg01253.html
> and asked for:
>
>> Thoughts?
>
> (2) or (3). I can live with either.
>
> I like that you propose that we do (2) and shelf (3) for an
> extension later. That way, at the very least the ALTO server
> is not reporting costs for which it is not authoritative.
>
> To be sure, we should state what form the "entry is simply omitted
> from the matrix" takes on the wire. That is, blank, "-", N/A, NaN,
> or something else.
The intent would be that it just isn't there. So, something like this:
{
"meta" : {},
"data" : {
"cost-mode" : "numerical",
"cost-type" : "routingcost",
"map-vtag" : "1266506139",
"map" : {
"PID1": { "PID1": 1, "PID2": 5 },
"PID2": { "PID1": 5, "PID2": 1, "PID3": 15 },
"PID3": { "PID2": 15, "PID3": 1 }
}
}
}
Thanks,
Rich
>
> Thanks,
>
> - vijay
> --
> Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
> 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
> Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email protected]
> Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
>
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
