Hi all,
As this way unambiguously shows that the source/destination pair exists
in the network map but that the requested Cost is not available for this
pair, it's ok with me as well.
As for the the possible extension (3), with non-authoritative cost
information, the presence of non-authoritative information could be
indicated in a global way in a cost attribute called for example
reliability ratio, eg "nb of authoritative S/D costs/nb of S/D costs or
something more fancy like "sum of S/D reliability %/nb of S/D pairs" or
whatever preferred indicator.
An ALTO Client reading this may decide to GET the related Cost Map or
not, and possibly save an ALTO transaction.
Sabine
Vijay K. Gurbani a écrit :
On 10/27/2011 12:22 PM, Richard Alimi wrote:
[...]
To keep the specification simple, perhaps it would be more clear to
state it in the affirmative -- something to the effect of "the ALTO
Server need only include source/destination pairs that exist" (and we
can ensure that the existing rules are in line with this). Then ALTO
Clients can just iterate through the returned JSON and fill in the
entries in the matrix that they find (and just not complain about
missing ones). The actual syntax of the JSON matters less then -
servers could either omit the entire row for the source PID, or have
the row empty, whatever.
Any complaints with that?
Rich: Works for me.
Thanks,
- vijay
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Sabine RANDRIAMASY
Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs France
Centre de Villarceau
Route de Villejust - 91620 NOZAY - FRANCE
E-MAIL : [email protected]
TEL: +33 (0)1 30 77 27 45
(On Net) 2 103 27 45
---------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
