Re: [alto] Adopting draft-kiesel-alto-xdom-disc as WG item?

[Wendy Roome <[e-mail]>]

Sebastian,

RFC 7285 does not explicitly say that. But Section 8.3.1 defines the
resource closure as all resources the client can discover by starting with
the root IRD and walking all the secondary IRDs, and Section 9.1.1 says
resource IDs should be unique over all resources in that closure.

Furthermore, Section 9.2.4 gives an example of a secondary IRD with
filtered cost maps. They use the network map resource defined in the root
IRD in Section 9.2.3, and complement the full cost maps in the root IRD.
So the filtered maps in that secondary IRD should return cost values which
are consistent with those in the full cost maps. Otherwise clients would
be very confused!

	- Wendy

On 07/12/2016, 17:09, "Sebastian Kiesel" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>
>>If so, I don't think of a secondary IRD as representing a
>>different ALTO server. Rather, I regard secondary IRDs as distributing
>>the
>>resources of one ALTO server over several physical processors. I assumed
>>that the set of resources from the root IRD and secondary IRDs were
>>managed by the same entity, and used the same cost metric definitions, so
>>that cost metric values obtained from any of those resources could be
>>safely compared with each other.
>
>Hm. I need to think about that.  Did we define this, or is there text
>that at least suggests that behavior?
>