I think that we just specify the numerical & ordinal values for routingcost
cost map, then let each server decide whether it wants to present numerical or
ordinal versions. The hopcount cost map is no need to specify, as it is not a
MUST in
RFC 7285.
-----原始邮件-----
发件人:"Wendy Roome" <[email protected]>
发送时间:2015-06-02 22:17:46 (星期二)
收件人: "Hans Seidel" <[email protected]>, "Y. Richard Yang" <[email protected]>
抄送: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
主题: Re: [alto] Interop test
I suggest a slightly different approach: we specify the numerical values for
routingcost & hopcount. Then let each server decide whether it wants to present
numerical or ordinal versions. The only requirement is that a server MUST
provide a routingcost cost map, either numerical or ordinal. Servers can
provide whatever additional resources they want, and clients can fetch &
validate any resources they recognize.
We do not define ordinal values, but allow servers to assign whatever values
they want as long as the ordering is consistent with the numerical values we
specify. That is sufficient to allow a client to verify the ordinal values.
- Wendy Roome
From: Hans Seidel <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, June 2, 2015 at 03:00
To: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email protected]>
Cc: Wendy Roome <[email protected]>, "Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]"
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [alto] Interop test
On 29.05.2015 20:24, Y. Richard Yang wrote:
On Saturday, May 30, 2015, Wendy Roome <[email protected]> wrote:
I thought RFC 7285 required order-consistency between numerical & ordinal modes
for the same metric. But I cannot find that requirement. Too bad! I would have
added that if I realized it wasn't there.
I remembered that the removal of the consistency requirement was a conscious
decision, not an omission, to reduce the load of consistency checking. I buy
your point below of a server supporting only one, in the sense of providing the
maximum allowed by the privacy concern.
Regarding supporting both in the interop, I will be happy to wait a bit to hear
others' opinions.
I agree that providing both numerical and ordinal mode for the same cost metric
makes little sense from a real world perspective. For the interop, I think both
should be covered. Since Wendy already proposed cost maps for routingcost and
hopcount in her initial mail, I suggest providing a numerical cost map for one
metric and an ordinal for the other.
Hans
--
----------------
Best!
Huaming Guo
China Academy of Information and Communications Technology (CAICT)
No.36 A Nanlishi Road, Xicheng District, Beijing 100037, China
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
