On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote:

> Joel,
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 07:34:42PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> > To amplify my previous reply on priority, priority is associated
> > with the I2RS Client.  it does not change even if the client is
> > acting on behalf of multiple secondary identities.  (If the use case
> > requires that variability, use multiple primary identities, with
> > separate sessions.)
>
> To attempt to reduce this to an example:
> Basis case: Multiple clients speaking directly to an agent.  Clients have
> distinct priorities.  Priority causes config to tie-break appropriately
> among the various client interactions.
>
> Proxy case: Agent is against as "root" from a proxy, potentially with the
> a single priority.  As long as the proxy maintains the tie-breaking as if
> it
> had implemented the agent operations, it's okay that the resultant nodes
> may
> have the same priority associated with them?
>
> Gloss: We still haven't concluded our discussion as to whether the nodes
> are
> decorated as "owned by an identity" or "have a priority".
>
> Note that the gloss has an interesting impact.  If nodes are expected to
> get
> their priority via identity, this makes things very messy if you don't
> maintain multiple identities to have distinct priorities in the proxy case.
>
>

OK -- it is becoming clearer now -- in order to support a broker, the
priority is saved with the node, not the client.

The operator configured priority is really the "best allowed".
Let's say lower priorities are better, and client A is assigned the
value 10.  That means client A is allowed to use priorities 10 .. 255.

Each edit from client A can have a priority that is associated with
the secondary client.

   <rpc>
      <edit-config>
         <target><ephemeral /></target>
         <config>  ... </config>
         <secondary-identity>app27</secondary-identity>
         <priority>42</priority>
      </edit-config>
   </rpc>

An error is returned if <priority> is 9 or lower in this example.

IMO this is better than requiring client A to open a session as a
different user name for each priority value needed.



-- Jeff
>


Andy
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

Reply via email to