Here is how I think of pushing updates for multiple resources in one streamand also explains why I'm not comfortable with the current design.
1. Can multiple resources be put in one stream? Yes -> 2 NO -> I can live with this. But as Wendy suggested, we still want to make it easier for clients to handle dependencies. 2. Can arbitrary resources be put in one stream? Yes/NO -> 3 NO -> What's the principle here then? At the moment dependency (not necessarily the binding of network map and cost map but it's the only dependency defined by now) is the only principle that makes sense. 3. Do we allow closing a subset of resources in a stream? Yes -> 4 NO -> I can live with this. 4. Can a client add resources to a stream then? Yes -> That's what I prefer because if we support closing a subset, it seems reasonable and natural to have the symmetric operation. But we might have to extend the protocol. NO -> That's where we are and it really doesn't make any sense to me. Regards, Kai On 10/03/16 03:26, Wendy Roome wrote: > That is a useful guideline, but I do not think it should be a strict > requirement. Right now, the only dependency is between a cost map & a > network map. But we have talked about other relationships, such as > topology or routing maps between PIDs. So I think the SSE update draft > should be general enough that it could be applied to new dependency > relationships, and those future relationships might result in more > general graphs than the rooted-tree of a network map and its cost maps. > > Section 6.5 does recommend that the resource set for each > update-stream resource be closed under the dependency relationship. > However, that allows a server to define one update-stream for several > network maps & their dependent cost maps, while I think you are > suggesting that each network map (and its dependent cost maps) should > have its own update-stream resource. We could extend the > recommendation by adding, “and no subset of the resource set should > be closed”, which I think accomplishes what you suggested. But I do > not see how that would simplify either clients or servers. > > - Wendy Roome > > From: EXT Gao Kai <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Wed, March 9, 2016 at 01:05 > To: Wendy Roome <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [alto] State of the WG > > On 08/03/16 22:14, Wendy Roome wrote: >> * Delivering push-updates for multiple resources via one stream was >> only partly to minimize the number of streams. The bigger reason is >> that cost maps depend on network maps, and if the network map >> changes, the cost map changes as well. It is easier for the client to >> handle those dependencies if the server delivers updates for all >> those resources via a single stream, in a predictable order. > Maybe we should make it explicit that only the cost map with its > dependent network map(s) can be pushed in one stream? >>
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
