On Monday, July 2, 2012, Richard Alimi wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Bill Roome > <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > {7.7.3.1.5} -- Endpoint Property Response -- says > > > > The ALTO Server MAY include the Version Tag (Section 5.3) of the > > Network Map used to generate the response (if desired and applicable) > > as the 'map-vtag' member in the response. If the 'pid' property is > > returned for any endpoints in the response, the 'map-vtag' member is > > REQUIRED instead of OPTIONAL. > > > > > > However the example in {7.7.3.1.6} doesn't follow that rule. It's > > > > { > > "meta" : {}, > > "data": { > > "ipv4:192.0.2.34" : { "pid": "PID1" }, > > "ipv4:203.0.113.129" : { "pid": "PID3" } > > } > > } > > > > > > where it should be > > > > { > > "meta" : {}, > > "data": { > > "map-vtag" : "1266506139", > > "ipv4:192.0.2.34" : { "pid": "PID1" }, > > "ipv4:203.0.113.129" : { "pid": "PID3" } > > } > > } > > > > > > But that has an unfortunate complication. Before, all the keys in the > "data" > > object were endpoints. > > But now, a key is an endpoint address UNLESS it's "map-vtag". Granted, > > that's not ambiguous, because > > "map-vtag" can't possibly be an endpoint address. > > > > But still it's annoying. Compare that with the a filtered network-map > > response: > > > > { > > "meta" : {}, > > "data" : { > > "map-vtag" : "1266506139", > > "map" : { > > "PID1" : { > > "ipv4" : [ "192.0.2.0/24", "198.51.100.0/24" ] > > }, > > "PID2" : { > > "ipv4": [ "198.51.100.128/24" ] > > } > > } > > } > > } > > > > There the PID name keys are all in a "map" object. So for consistency, > > the properties in an endpoint prop response should also be under a "map": > > > > { > > > > "meta" : {}, > > "data": { > > "map-vtag" : "1266506139", > > "map" : { > > "ipv4:192.0.2.34" : { "pid": "PID1" }, > > "ipv4:203.0.113.129" : { "pid": "PID3" } > > } > > } > > } > > > > > > Comments? > > I like this revision too. Here the "map" really means the specific "mapping" from key(s) to value(s). It is consistent.
- yry > Thanks for catching this. I completely agree with the suggested > approach of putting all of of the properties within a 'map' object. > That seems to be a much cleaner approach. > > Thanks, > Rich > > > > > - Bill Roome > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > alto mailing list > > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto > > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
