[alto] ALTO Extension: Defining a Cost Metrics document?

["Y. Richard Yang" <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

I am reading up on the documents that define cost metrics.

The motivation is that the base ALTO protocol (
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-alto-protocol-20.txt) has defined only
one Cost Metric: 'routingcost':

- Defined the semantics at Sec. 6.1.1.1 of , and then listed it at Table 3.

- Used "hopcount" in examples of Sec. 9.2.3 and 9.2.4, but the semantics of
not formally defined.

Given the aforementioned state of the base protocol, I see good value in
that the WG produces a WG document that defines a relatively complete set
of Cost Metrics.

I particular, I read the following:

- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-alto-app-net-info-exchange-02
  (Sec. 3.4 introduced three metrics: hopcount, latency, pktcost, and cost)

- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-alto-json-te-01
  Defined a set of metrics: in Sec. 4. This work, as stated in the
document, is motivated by

- http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-04.txt

During the review of ALTO base protocol, we are suggested to document
performance metrics (cost metrics) per the guideline of

- RFC 6390 Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development.
A. Clark, B. Claise. October 2011. (Format: TXT=49930 bytes) (Also BCP0170)
(Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE)

Here a first question, I have, is whether the authors will produce a
"simple" document, at the upcoming IETF, whose only purpose is to:

  define a set of cost metrics, including the nameing, the semantics, ...
following the guideline per RFC 6390, that can benefit the base protocol.

I feel that such a document is focused, and has good value by itself.

The implications of the introducing multiple cost metrics can be explored
in another document, which I will send in another email shortly.

Thanks.

Richard