On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 02:50:59PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > On 4/15/14, 2:09 PM, Dean Bogdanovic wrote: > >Besides having the same comment as Jeff, here is one more and think some > >additional clarification is needed > > > >Actor Identifier: This is an opaque identifier that may be known to > > the Client from a northbound controlling application. This is > > used to trace the northbound actor driving the actions of the > > Client. The Client may not provide this identifier to the Agent > > if there is no external actor driving the Client. However, this > > field MUST be logged. If the Client does not provide an actor ID, > > then the Agent MUST log an empty field. > >I can see that Actor ID can be useful to report back to Client operator > >about rouge Actor. WRT logging Actor ID, when the Actor ID is not provided > >by Client, instead of logging an empty field, I would suggest to log UNKNOWN > >or NOT FOUND or NOT PROVIDED, as it is easier to search for a keyword then > >just empty field. > > Thanks, Dean. The searchability is a good point. Of the three you > propose, I think "NOT PROVIDED" is the only correct option. What do > others think? Admittedly, this might evolve into some kind of > enumeration where we might need values like "NOT PROVIDED" and > "UNKNOWN" to accommodate different states.
Reserved values may be the appropriate answer, although they should be scarcely used since they suggest that the reserved name is unavailable in other portions of other systems. As we resolve the discussion about data model for this component, we might find that the data modeling language provides some help here. For example, a "string" component may permit arbitrary Actor Identifiers, while a type of "enueration" in the same field could have reserved components. This would of course depend on whether typed fields are even an option. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
