Richard, I don¹t like that language it¹s too wishy-washy. If an ECS can ³use² a Network Map, we need to spell out what that means.
So I support either of two alternatives. (1) Say that an ECS MAY ³use² a Network Map, and spell out what that means. E..g., if an ECS ³uses² a Network Map, then that ECS is equivalent to a Filtered Cost Map resource on that Network Map, using the PIDs of the source and destination endpoint addresses. This means the client can assume the ECS will return the same cost for any endpoint in the source PID to any endpoint in the destination PID (modulo cost updates). If an ECS does not ³use² a Network Map, then the client can make no assumptions about how the ECS costs relate to the costs for any PIDs or endpoints. (2) Say that ECS MUST NOT ³use² a Network or Cost Map. The ECS cost is the cost from the source to destination endpoint; the client cannot draw any conclusions about costs for PIDs or other endpoints. BTW, I thought we¹d agreed on #2, until a colleague pointed out that 11.5.1.5 says an ECS can use a map. - Wendy Roome From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email protected]> Date: Tue, February 25, 2014 at 10:52 To: Wendy Roome <[email protected]> Cc: IETF ALTO <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [alto] Ambiguity in ALTO draft 25 Hi Wendy, Good discussion. I believe that the previous conclusion is that ECS does not reveal any dependency. Hence, a simple change will be the last sentence: "...However, to preserve flexibility, there is no need for the ECS resource to declare the network map and/or cost map on which it depends." How does this sound? Richard
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
