On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Bill Roome <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 05/18/2012 15:00, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:24 AM, Songhaibin <[email protected]> >>wrote: >>>Hi Rich, >>> >>> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>>>Behalf Of >>>>Richard Alimi >>>>Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 2:05 PM >>>>To: Songhaibin >>>>Cc: Enrico Marocco; [email protected] >>>>Subject: Re: [alto] WGLC: draft-ietf-alto-protocol-11 >>>> >>>>On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Songhaibin <[email protected]> >>>>wrote: >>>>> In general, this draft is in good shape. >>>>> >>>>> One randomly caught problem, in Section 5.1.2.2, the ordinal mode >>>>introduction, it says this cost mode is a ranking from a particular >>>>source to >>a set of >>>>destinations. But in Section 5.2, the introduction of cost map >>>>structure, the >>cost >>>>mode "ordinal" can be applied to m*n entries in the cost map. So I >>>>suggest to >>>>modify the previous section 5.1.2.2 to make them consistent. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Thanks for catching that. In fact, the sentence "If the Cost Mode is >>>>'ordinal', the Path Cost of each communicating pair is relative to the >>>>m*n entries" can probably just be removed. >>>> >>> >>>I'm sorry that I have a different opinion here. >> >>No need to apologize :) >> >>[Haibin] I only pretended to be. :) >> >>>The "ordinal" cost to entries in a matrix makes sense to me. I prefer to >>modify the definition in 5.1.2.2, the ranking can be from multiple >>sources to >>multiple destinations. Or is there special reason to limit it to 1*n? >>> >> >>As an author/editor, I will say that the intent was for them to be >>relative to only the costs from the same source. However, if the WG >>believes that should not be he case, then please do say so. >> >>To summarize the differences in semantics: >>(a) The interpretation that an ordinal cost is relative to all other >>entries in the cost map means a server could convey a policy like "I >>would rather you send traffic from s1 -> d1 instead of from s2 -> d2" >>(b) The interpretation that an ordinal cost is relative only to other >>ordinal costs from that same source means you can't specify that >>policy in an ordinal map. >> >>The original thought was that (b) makes the protocol a bit simpler to >>reason about and captures the major use cases for ordinal costs. >>However, it has slightly less expressive power when it comes to >>encoding policies. It is certainly worth having the discussion as to >>which way we should go. >> >>Any other comments? >> >>[Haibin] I can give a use case where "option (a)" is meaningful. I think >>other people might give other use cases too. Assume that in CDN >>interconnection scenario, there are several surrogates from downstream CDN >>that can be injected delegate contents from upstream CDN, and at the same >>time there are a few surrogates in the upstream CDN that can provide the >>content. It is better to query the ALTO server do decide a path from a >>particuplar surrogate of upstream CDN to a surrogate of downstream CDN. >>The >>ordinal costs applied to a m*n entries can be used for this decision. > > I always assumed "option a": ordinals are relative to all costs > in this response, not just the costs for the same source. Of course, > "option a" automatically satisfies "option b", so if a server is > willing to do (a), then the server is in compliance regardless of > what we decide.
Alright - this all seems reasonable to me. We'll update the draft to make it clear that the proper interpretation is (a), that an ordinal cost is relative to all other entries in the map. 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
