Great !! Let’s fix the sentence in the next version as we address remaining IESG comments.
Thanks a lot! Richard On Feb 25, 2014, at 3:45 PM, Wendy Roome <[email protected]> wrote: > That’s perfect!! > > I’m glad to hear that you also thought we’d agreed on #2. For a while I was > afraid that I’d had a major “senior moment". > > - Wendy > > From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, February 25, 2014 at 15:38 > To: Wendy Roome <[email protected]> > Cc: IETF ALTO <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [alto] Ambiguity in ALTO draft 25 > > Wendy, > > Thanks for clarifying the alternatives. I also thought that we agreed on #2, > and the sentence at 11.5.1.5 is a left over. I think a clean, simple change > is #2: "ECS MUST NOT use a Network or Cost Map. Hence, the ECS cost is the > cost from the source to destination endpoint. A future extension may allow > ECS to state that it “uses” a Network Map. The extension then will need to > define the semantics.” Does this work for you? > > Richard > > On Feb 25, 2014, at 3:25 PM, Wendy Roome <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Richard, >> >> I don’t like that language — it’s too wishy-washy. If an ECS can “use” a >> Network Map, we need to spell out what that means. >> >> So I support either of two alternatives. >> >> (1) Say that an ECS MAY “use” a Network Map, and spell out what that means. >> E..g., if an ECS “uses” 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 “use” 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 “use” 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 we’d 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
