[ As chair ]
On 03/28/2013 11:21 AM, Sebastian Kiesel wrote:
Wendy,
thanks. So basically I can document the "default value" in the
definition of the cost and, e.g., define [...]
This looks like a workaround to me, which works as long as the metric is
not tied to real units of measurement and as long as the
"better/worse-border" does not change too often. It's OK for me if we
leave it as it is, but would it hurt someone if we add it as an option?
Sebastian: I suspect that we are better off not adding anything new to
the specification if we do not need to, especially if the option to be
added can be affected in an alternate (though more verbose) manner.
At this time, I think it is better to limit adding new options and and
concentrate on finishing the protocol specification.
That said, I trust the authors can provide a concrete example for
encoding different costs based on the conversation between you and
Wendy. That is preferable to having a new, and perhaps normative
strength option that appears in the protocol document at this late a
stage.
Sorry to crack the proverbial whip, but let's try to wrap the protocol
document up as a first order of business.
I hope you understand.
Thanks,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email protected]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
