On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 6:50 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Haibin, > > On 26 Dec 2011, at 09:42, Songhaibin wrote: > >> The current ALTO protocol document describes the dependency of the cost map >> and network map, and only network map version tag is used for consistence >> check. But the cost map might be changed without the change of network map, >> I think we should allow the ALTO client to only update its cost map if the >> network map has not been changed. > > This seems an unnecessary restriction as if the Network Map changes in many > cases the resulting Cost Map will have to change and in addition there will > be cases where the Cost map changes when the Network Map stays the same. > >> Shall we add a version tag for the cost map? > > My preference would be that ALTO Servers & Clients make use of HTTP Etags so > that clients can do IfNoneMatch type operations to check if the Cost Map has > changed without having to first obtain the entire unchanged map again and > check for a costmap-version field embedded in the map itself. >
Agreed. We only needed a version tag for consistency between network map and cost map because they are two separate HTTP resources and we need a way to cross-reference them. Asking for updates to single resource can be done using the standard tools in HTTP. Rich > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
