Joel, On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:28:13AM -0400, Joel Halpern Direct wrote: > Since ForCES name space is per-lfb-class. So that the collision > problem is mostly in the naming of the lfb classes. (Some care is > needed in the naming of data types and such, but it is pretty easy > to do that in a colission avoiding fashion. The harder problem, > which applies equally to NetConf and ForCES, is to know when you can > reuse an existing definition and when you need your own.)
I'm still working my way through my FORCES reading. It would be very helpful to see an example of this. To offer an example from netconf that I commented upon at various WG sessions, a RIB entry will tend to consist of things that are common across implementations (prefix, nexthop[s], source protocol) and may be augmented by either protocol-specific components (AS_PATH, communities for BGP; metric for IGP) or vendor-specific ones (weight, administrative distance, etc.) In YANG, this is mostly a matter of just decorating with additional XML elements around the core objects. (I'm over-generalizing.) How does one do this in FORCES? > Note that the protocol on the wire does not use the names at all, > but only the assigned identifiers. Which are registered precisely > to avoid collision. One of my lesser concerns here is that code point registries provide another pivot for coordinating development work, in or out of IETF. Arguably, XML token names have the same sort of issue to some extent, but tend not to be "last code point +1". -- Jeff _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
