[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote On 02/18/06 01:45,:
>If we're not going to make IP work, and we're not going to test that other
>DLPI-based applications work, then I don't see any point in removing the
>requirement for a trailing digit. One of the philosophies of Clearview is
>to make the administrative model more consistent. Being able to create
>link names that only work with specific DLPI consumers is a step away from
>that -- and a pointless step, given the other higher-level restrictions on
>the format of DLPI names (e.g., allowing special tokens such as `:' would
>prove disastrous for IP).
>
>
Consistency is great, but that doesn't justify piling crud on top of
some otherwise clean parts of the system to match the height of the crud
that already exists in another spot. Even just spreading it around
evenly isn't very good, it certainly doesn't help the person who comes
along after you who is willing to shovel it away entirely as long as
it's only in one place.
As for testing, the change I suggest reduces the testing required (if you
add code to enforce this arbitrary restriction, you have to test it... if
it's not there, there's nothing to test.) There is no effect on the
amount of non-IP testing required or the likelihood of problems in non-IP
code.
>All that said, there is nothing in the Vanity Naming administrative model
>that requires the use of a trailing digit -- if the restriction needs to
>be lifted in the future, Vanity Naming will certainly not prove an
>impediment.
>
I'm not so sure that's true. By documenting the restriction you are
inviting applications to write code that depends on it, and getting us
stuck right back where we were, unable to improve.
-=] Mike [=-
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
