Re: [CDNi] CDNI JSON object description notations

[Ori Finkelman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rob,
Thanks for your input, in that case I will just stick with one of the
notations.
As for the separation of documents, I think that at this point I will keep
it in a single draft, at least until the first revision is published.
Then we can discuss it and decide if I should split them or keep them
together, I am fine with both alternatives.

Thanks,
Ori

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Murray, Rob (Nokia - GB/Cambridge) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ori, all,
>
>
>
> I don't think the difference has any particular significance, just style.
> I probably based the Triggers headings on an earlier version of the
> metadata draft, or maybe just changed the headings without thinking.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure whether it's best to have an Open Caching extensions draft
> per CDNI interface. Perhaps it depends on where the extensions are headed
> ... if the intention is to update/replace each of the existing RFCs, maybe
> it'll be easiest to keep the draft updates separate. Otherwise, if the new
> draft is going to turn into a standalone SVA Open Caching extensions RFC,
> perhaps it'd be best to keep all the extensions together?
>
>
>
> Rob.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *CDNi <[e-mail]> on behalf of Ori Finkelman <
> [e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 2 May 2018 at 13:49
> *To: *"<[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[CDNi] CDNI JSON object description notations
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am currently drafting and extension for the CDNI Triggers interface.
>
> I am wondering about the differences in JSON object specification
> notations between RFCs 8006 (metadata) and 8008 (FCI)  vs RFC 8007
> (Triggers).
>
> In metadata and FCI a json field is described as a "property" that has a
> "description" and a "type", for example
>
> +  GenericMetadata https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8006#section-4.1.7
>
>
>
>       Property: generic-metadata-type
>
>
>
>          Description: Case-insensitive CDNI Metadata object type.
>
>
>
>          Type: String containing the CDNI Payload Type [RFC7736 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7736>] of the
>
>          object contained in the generic-metadata-value property (see
>
>          Table 4).
>
>
>
> + FCI Base Advertisement Object https://tools.ietf.org/
> html/rfc8008#section-5.1
>
>
>
>       Property: capability-type
>
>
>
>          Description: CDNI capability object type.
>
>
>
>          Type: FCI-specific CDNI Payload Type (from the "CDNI Payload
>
>          Types" registry [RFC7736 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7736>])
>
>
>
>          Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
>
>
> While in Triggers, the JSON field is described as a "name" that has a
> "description" and a "value" for example:
>
> + Trigger Specification https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8007#section-5.2.1
>
>
>
>       Name: type
>
>
>
>          Description: Defines the type of the CI/T Trigger Command.
>
>
>
>          Value: Trigger Type, as defined in Section 5.2.2 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8007#section-5.2.2>.
>
>
>
> I was wondering what is the reason for this difference, is it anything but
> different styles ? what notation should we follow when extending these
> interfaces, and in my case, as my draft extends both interface, what
> notation should be used ?
>
> Perhaps, this means I should have two separate drafts ?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ori
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> *Ori Finkelman *Qwilt | Work: [phone] | Mobile: [phone] |
> [e-mail]
>



-- 

*Ori Finkelman*Qwilt | Work: [phone] | Mobile: [phone] |
[e-mail]