Richard,
Yes, those are the names I was referring to.
ALTO puts two restrictions on names: length and charset. I believe the
length restrictions were added for clients in languages like C with limited
support for arbitrary length strings. I gather a server at the first
inter-op test used very long tag strings, and one or more clients couldn¹t
handle them.
The charset restriction for PID names was to allow a possible hierarchy. The
charset restriction for resource ids was because resource-ids can be
qualifiers in resource-specific property names see {10.8.1}.
It would be nice to define a length limit for cost-type names, to simplify
clients and for consistency with the other name classes. I don¹t see any
inherent need to restrict their character set. But that said, it would make
the IRD a lot more readable if we restrict cost-type-names to the same
charset as resource ids.
BTW, a JSONString is any quoted string acceptable to JSON, isn¹t it? If so,
it can be any number of unicode characters. So saying that cost-type-names
must be JSONStrings does not restrict the names in any way.
- Wendy
From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, March 20, 2014 at 14:59
To: Wendy Roome <[email protected]>
Cc: IETF ALTO <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [alto] Format of ALTO cost-types?
Hi Wendy,
To clarify, you mean the assigned name in IRD. For example, in the example
below, it is "num-routing", "num-hop", right?
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 2333
Content-Type: application/alto-directory+json
{
"meta" : {
"cost-types": {
"num-routing": {
"cost-mode" : "numerical",
"cost-metric": "routingcost",
"description": "My default"
},
"num-hop": {
"cost-mode" : "numerical",
"cost-metric": "hopcount"
},
"ord-routing": {
"cost-mode" : "ordinal",
"cost-metric": "routingcost"
},
"ord-hop": {
"cost-mode" : "ordinal",
"cost-metric": "hopcount"
}
},
The related definition then is
object-map {
JSONString -> CostType;
} IRDMetaCostTypes;
object {
JSONString cost-type-names<1..1>;
} CostMapCapabilities;
The proposal is to limit JSONString? I agree that this is more consistent
with PIDName, Resource ID, ... We restricted PIDName and Resource ID with an
intention of introducing hierarchy in the future (e.g., this is why '.' is
not allowed ...) Is this necessary for CostType names?
Thanks!
Richard
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
