Subject: [Roll] comparison of metric containers

From: Mukul Goyal <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 16:53:20 -0500 (CDT)

Hi JP

Below I have pasted some text from the current version of the P2P draft, your comment and my clarification. I noticed that section 8 of the new version of the metrics draft does define how to compare two metric containers containing multiple aggregated metrics in a particular order. So I guess now I can simply refer to the metrics draft rather try to clarify "comparison of metric containers" myself?

In general, I was wondering if it makes sense for the the metrics draft to define rules for metric container comparison. I thought that interpretation of metrics is part of the objective function?
 
Thanks
Mukul

along with the associated source route
      from the initiator of route discovery till this router (carried in
      a Record Route IPv6 Extension Header proposed in
      [I-D.thubert-6man-reverse-routing-header]), for the Route
      Discovery option being propagated by the temporary DAG.  If the
      router can not compare Metric Containers, it MUST remember the
      latest Metric Container it has received, along with the associated
      source route.
JP> Requires clarification on what you mean by "compare"
MG> Some times, the Metric Containers will be easy to compare. E.g. if the good enough criteria (specified as a constraint) is that ETX must be less than 10, the Metric Container will contain two objects: one constraint (ETX must be less than 10) and one aggregated value for the ETX so far. Here, comparing the Metric Container simply means comparing the aggregated ETX values. In case of Metric Containers carrying multiple metrics, comparison will not be possible. I will make this clear in the text.