Whoops -- I meant [9.1.2] should say that an ALTO server must provide 'numerical' OR 'ordinal' mode, not that a server must support both!
Related question: Do we really need to require that all ALTO servers support a Cost Type named 'routingcost'? Suppose I have an ALTO server that provides a custom Cost Type to a select group of authorized clients. None of those clients need 'routingcost'. Why must my server support a Cost Type that no client will ever use? So I'd be happy to drop that requirement altogether. Aside: My design philosophy is Libertarian, so I tend to challenge "MUST" requirements. I think they should exist only if they are absolutely necessary for interoperability. - Wendy Roome From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email protected]> Date: Mon, March 18, 2013 15:12 Subject: Re: [alto] minor inconsistency in draft 14 Hi Wendy, So you think each implementation MUST provide both numerical and ordinal modes for the 'routingcost' metric. I believe that this is true for all existing implementations, and hence a useful requirement. If no objection from others, we should add this to ensure interop. Thanks! Richard On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Wendy Roome <[email protected]> wrote: > We've worked hard to allow ALTO servers to use ordinal mode instead of > numerical mode. However, Section "9.1.2 Cost Maps" (first paragraph, last > sentence) says: > > This resource MUST be provided for at least the > 'routingcost' Cost Type and 'numerical' Cost Mode. > > > I think that should read > > ... Cost Type and either 'numerical' or 'ordinal' Cost Mode. > > - Wendy 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
