Richard A., Thanks a lot for quickly start the discussions right away! Please see below.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Richard Alimi <[email protected]> wrote: > For the IRD, there are a couple of ways we could go. > > [ In the examples, I'll use the proposal where we add "cost metrics"; > adjust as necessary depending on the outcome of that discussion. ] > > In the first, we have the cost-types expanded in each of the individual > resource entries: > > resources = [ > { > "uri" : "http://alto.example.com/costmap/num/somemaps";, > "media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ], > "capabilities" : { > "cost-types" : [ > {"mode" : "numerical", "metric": ”routingcost"}, > {"mode" : "numerical", "metric": ”hopcount"} > ] > } > ] > > > A second way is that we could have a lookup table accompanying the IRD: > > "cost-types": { > "num-routing": {"mode" : "numerical", "metric": ”routingcost"}, > "num-hop": {"mode" : "numerical", "metric": ”hopcount"} > } > > "resources" = [ > { > "uri" : "http://alto.example.com/costmap/num/somemaps";, > "media-types" : [ "application/alto-costmap+json" ], > "capabilities" : { > "cost-types" : [ "num-routing", "num-hop" ] > } > ] > > Some benefits I see to this second approach is that it makes the IRD as a > whole more concise when there are multiple cost maps and just generally > seems "cleaner" to me. It remains concise if we add more descriptors to a > "cost metric" in the future. The identifiers are opaque and local to the > IRD so there is no need to register them or even require them to be > consistent between IRDs delivered to a client. > > For IRD, I like the second approach later as well. We can later extend the fields, such as to have: "num-routing": {"mode" : "numerical", "metric": ”routingcost", "description":"My descriptoin"}, by adding some fields that Wendy suggested. A further step is on individual IR, for example, Cost Map, do we specify "num-routing" or ? {"mode" : "numerical", "metric": ”routingcost"} If we use "num-routing", then the ALTO Client needs to fetch the name from IRD, which may or may not be desirable. But overall, I support putting "mode" and "metric" into a single object for ease of enumeration. Otherwise, I am flexible. Richard > Thanks, > 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
