Wendy, On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Wendy Roome <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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, > This makes sense. We can specify the validation condition for the interop: - For network map, the only unspecified value then is the "vtag" field, and the interop specifies the assert, which is based on consistency between data and IRD. - For cost map, the only unspecified is the exact "dependent-vtags", and your validation makes sense. > and it can verify that ordinal cost values are consistent with the order > of the known numerical values. > This is a reasonable validation. An issue is that RFC7285 specifies only that "An ALTO server MUST support at least one of the following modes: numerical and ordinal." I believe that RFC7285 chose to not specify the consistency between the two modes. Hence, this is beyond compliance, right? Hence, I feel that separating RFC7285-conforming and beyond can be helpful. Richard > > 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
