> My understanding of the decision that an ALTO Server must > provide "routingcost" is also related with the design of > allowing default. For example, CostMapCapability can be empty > and implies "routingcost". One analogy one might or may not > like is that TLS (RFC5246) defines that > TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA is mandatory. But we can imagine > that there is no mandatory and hence allows TLS negotiation > to fail. But I agree with you that removing the so far MUST > supported cost type and endpoint property will not impact > interop in the sense that the protocol still works, and a > conforming ALTO Server may just not returning any > information. What do you and others think?
Another option would be to replace the term "routingcost" by something that does not specifically refer to a way how to determine that cost. For instance, "defaultcost"? But I don't have a strong preference here. Michael _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
