Hello Eliot, On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:10 AM Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Ranga, > > Sorry for the pre-mature send. > > On 1 Jul 2019, at 20:51, M. Ranganathan <[email protected]> wrote: > > What is the essential difference between a device declaring itself to be a > "controller" for another class and the situation where the device (being > controlled) just uses the "model" abstraction in an ACE? > > > You could indeed do this with “model”. The reason I hadn’t thought of > that was because in my mind, same-manufacturer and model were for NxN > communications, and that it might be a hint to the NMS to use appropriate > scale mechanisms. But that’s not actually in the text. > > I think, by the way, that there’s another reason to think about doing this > from the controller side: if the standards are open like we like them to > be, a device may not know who should be the controller for a particular > device or class. > > Yes I agree with your reasoning - especially the second part. I think some wording providing justification for this in the draft would be good (maybe even as an addendum to the MUD specification). Looking forward to further discussion on how applications can become controllers. Regards, Ranga > Eliot > -- M. Ranganathan
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
