I was assuming the interop test would specify the network & cost maps. E.g., the pid names, their CIDRs, and the costs between PIDs. Given that, and given the IRD entry for a resource (e.g., its media-type, accepts, uses and capabilities), a validating client should know exactly what that resource will return.
Okay, there are a few exceptions, such as the tag for a network map and the values of an ordinal cost map. But a client can verify that the network map vtag in a cost map matches the vtag in the network map, and it can verify that ordinal cost values are consistent with the order of the known numerical values. Operationally, the ideal validating client would print the results from the server, followed by a polite "C'est bon" or a big "I DISAGREE!!!" - Wendy From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email protected]> Date: Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:40 To: Wendy Roome <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]" <[email protected]>, Hans Seidel <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [alto] Interop test 1. I liked that the interop is for a setting that is close to real-life deployment. In particular, my understanding of the proposal is that the interop should leave as much unspecified as possible. A first reaction then is how to validate the correctness. For example, the response of resource-id is not known ahead of time. I assume that then the interop participants will need a second channel (e.g., human in the loop) to verify that a client c1 gets the correct response from a server s1. Is this the intended setting?
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
