Re: [alto] Interop test


Y. Richard Yang
 

Wendy,

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Wendy Roome <w.roome@...> wrote:
I was assuming the interop test would specify the network & cost maps. E.g., the pid names, their CIDRs, and the costs between PIDs. Given that, and given the IRD entry for a resource (e.g., its media-type, accepts, uses and capabilities), a validating client should know exactly what that resource will return.

Okay, there are a few exceptions, such as the tag for a network map and the values of an ordinal cost map. But a client can verify that the network map vtag in a cost map matches the vtag in the network map,

This makes sense. We can specify the validation condition for the interop:

- For network map, the only unspecified value then is the "vtag" field, and the interop specifies the assert, which is based on consistency between data and IRD.

- For cost map, the only unspecified is the exact "dependent-vtags", and your validation makes sense.

 
and it can verify that ordinal cost values are consistent with the order of the known numerical values.

This is a reasonable validation. An issue is that RFC7285 specifies only that "An ALTO server MUST support at least one of the following modes:  numerical and ordinal." I believe that RFC7285 chose to not specify the consistency between the two modes. Hence, this is beyond compliance, right? Hence, I feel that separating RFC7285-conforming and beyond can be helpful.

Richard

 

Operationally, the ideal validating client would print the results from the server, followed by a polite "C'est bon" or a big "I DISAGREE!!!"  

- Wendy

From: "Y. Richard Yang" <yry@...>
Date: Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:40
To: Wendy Roome <w.roome@...>
Cc: "alto@..." <alto@...>, "Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]" <Lyle.T.Bertz@...>, Hans Seidel <hseidel@...>, "alto-dev@..." <alto-dev@...>
Subject: Re: [alto] Interop test

1. I liked that the interop is for a setting that is close to real-life deployment. In particular, my understanding of the proposal is that the interop should leave as much unspecified as possible. A first reaction then is how to validate the correctness. For example, the response of resource-id is not known ahead of time. I assume that then the interop participants will need a second channel (e.g., human in the loop) to verify that a client c1 gets the correct response from a server s1. Is this the intended setting?

Join z.archive.alto-dev@lists.opendaylight.org to automatically receive all group messages.