Dear all, I am reading up on the documents that define cost metrics.
The motivation is that the base ALTO protocol ( http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-alto-protocol-20.txt) has defined only one Cost Metric: 'routingcost': - Defined the semantics at Sec. 6.1.1.1 of , and then listed it at Table 3. - Used "hopcount" in examples of Sec. 9.2.3 and 9.2.4, but the semantics of not formally defined. Given the aforementioned state of the base protocol, I see good value in that the WG produces a WG document that defines a relatively complete set of Cost Metrics. I particular, I read the following: - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-alto-app-net-info-exchange-02 (Sec. 3.4 introduced three metrics: hopcount, latency, pktcost, and cost) - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-alto-json-te-01 Defined a set of metrics: in Sec. 4. This work, as stated in the document, is motivated by - http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-04.txt During the review of ALTO base protocol, we are suggested to document performance metrics (cost metrics) per the guideline of - RFC 6390 Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development. A. Clark, B. Claise. October 2011. (Format: TXT=49930 bytes) (Also BCP0170) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE) Here a first question, I have, is whether the authors will produce a "simple" document, at the upcoming IETF, whose only purpose is to: define a set of cost metrics, including the nameing, the semantics, ... following the guideline per RFC 6390, that can benefit the base protocol. I feel that such a document is focused, and has good value by itself. The implications of the introducing multiple cost metrics can be explored in another document, which I will send in another email shortly. Thanks. Richard
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
