> But if we want one client to be able to modify part of a RIB entry, or if we > want to be able to work with things other than RIB entries, then all of the > issues that were discussed several years ago come back into play.
First -- in terms of granularity -- I don't think anyone should be modifying parts of a RIB entry. Rather, each "object" should be treated as an "object" in full. This is something that needs to be addressed in the models -- what is essential, and what is accidental. Second -- I'm not arguing one problem should be solved, and others shouldn't. I'm saying I think we might have two different interrelated problem sets, both of which need to be solved. For instance, it might be useful to say something like: "In the RIB, overwrites are not an error; in all other areas they are." And then define the models and processes to handle these two different cases. I don't know that using one unified way of dealing with things is necessarily going to solve all the problems at hand. Recognizing this might help us move forward in a coherent way, rather than stumbling over the same set of problems in different guises each time some new point is undertaken. :-) Russ _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
