Hi Wendy,
On Thursday, March 20, 2014, Wendy Roome <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 couldn't
> handle them.
>
I remember the same.
>
> 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 don't 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.
>
Agreed.
Good catch indeed.
Richard
>
> BTW, a JSONString is any quoted string acceptable to JSON, isn't 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]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
> >
> Date: Thu, March 20, 2014 at 14:59
> To: Wendy Roome
> <[email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
> >
> Cc: IETF ALTO <[email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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
>
--
--
=====================================
| Y. Richard Yang <[email protected]> |
| Professor of Computer Science |
| http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/ |
=====================================
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
