On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Nicholas Weaver <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 7, 2012, at 7:57 AM, Bill Roome wrote: >> 1. Should the ALTO spec forbid "empty" CIDRs in the network map? > >> 2. Should the ALTO spec require the CIDRs in a PID to be reduced to >> "lowest terms"? > > > My thoughts are "No" and "No", because churn will happen. > > > For the first, the "empty" CIDRs can be effectively catch-all rules, which > when a subrule goes in and out may change things. > > Likewise, I don't see the benefit of mandatory canonicalization/reduction > when there is possible churn, which will force the undoing/redoing of the > canonicalization. >
Agreed. While it may be aesthetically pleasing (and perhaps slightly smaller on the wire) to have a canonical representation, I'm not sure I see a reason to force this upon servers. Rich > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
