Sabine, Wendy,
Below, my comments/questions on draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost-02.txt.
S4.1.2 "constraints" paragraph:
If I get this correct, in case "max-cost-types" > 0 and extended
predicates are used, the logical OR applies instead of logical AND.
Why changing the behavior? Is there an advantage in using the logical OR?
What is used if no extended predicates are used, for example when a
legacy client is requesting a multi-cost resource?
I assume the logical AND as stated in RFC7285 but it is not entirely
clear to me.
How can a server distinguish between RFC7285 predicates and the new
extended predicates?
Here, I am especially thinking of the case, that cost type index "0" can
be omitted and the extended predicate becomes indistinguishable from
RFC7285 predicates.
In general, I noticed some upper/lower case inconsistencies for certain
nouns on several occasions. E.g. "client" and "Client" or "endpoint" and
"Endpoint".
For consistency reasons only one notation should be used.
Regards
Hans
On 14.06.2016 11:30, Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR) wrote:
Hi Kai, Qiao, Fred and all,
We have posted a new version of Multi-Cost ALTO according to your feedback. For
short:
- The extensions overview on "testable-cost-type-names", "constraints" and
"or-constraints" has been further clarified with additional subsections see 3.6.1 to 3.6.5,
- the design for the testable-cost-type-names capability (section 4.1.1) has been updated according
to Kai's feedback: "testable-cost-type-names" and "cost-constraints" are now
mutually exclusive to prevent legacy clients from issuing constraint tests on untestable cost types,
- the text on "constraints" and "or-constraints" input members in section 4.1.2
has been updated accordingly,
- the or-constraint member has been corrected to [JSONString or-constraints<0..*><0..*>;],
please note that this member will be corrected to [JSONString
or-constraints<1..*><1..*>;] in the next draft version.
- the ipv4 examples in section 5.6 have been extended with ipv6 examples,
Again thank you all for your valuable comments.
Please take a look and let us know if these updates meet your expectations,
Thanks,
Sabine, Wendy
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
