Re: [cicm] Key Identifers

"Novikov, Lev" <lnovikov@mitre.org> Mon, 06 June 2011 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <lnovikov@mitre.org>
X-Original-To: cicm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cicm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D4211E81C7 for <cicm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 11:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4gUzfJyoFg6q for <cicm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 11:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (smtpksrv1.mitre.org [198.49.146.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADDF211E81BF for <cicm@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 11:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 948B421B203C for <cicm@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 14:22:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imchub1.MITRE.ORG (imchub1.mitre.org [129.83.29.73]) by smtpksrv1.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 904C121B156F for <cicm@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 14:22:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from IMCMBX3.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.29.206]) by imchub1.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.29.73]) with mapi; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 14:22:44 -0400
From: "Novikov, Lev" <lnovikov@mitre.org>
To: "CICM Discussion List (cicm@ietf.org)" <cicm@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 14:21:49 -0400
Thread-Topic: [cicm] Key Identifers
Thread-Index: AQHMIiC4MPsFX1Dzn0qnSMClDalVL5SsNdIjgAQiuFCAADVEEIAAGbIA
Message-ID: <F9AB58FA72BAE7449E7723791F6993ED05D3341F70@IMCMBX3.MITRE.ORG>
References: <E3337014FCBC034BBD725917528D5D7BD08CBF@vcaexch06.hq.corp.viasat.com><06D46EAFF7D0C946BEC108DB7CCDC9A608B49452@ROCMXUS21.cs.myharris.net> <BB991CD915E5884B9E4D087F2C63EE0BD332BF@csemail02.cse.l-3com.com> <E3337014FCBC034BBD725917528D5D7BD08CC4@vcaexch06.hq.corp.viasat.com>
In-Reply-To: <E3337014FCBC034BBD725917528D5D7BD08CC4@vcaexch06.hq.corp.viasat.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [cicm] Key Identifers
X-BeenThere: cicm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: CICM Discussion List <cicm@ietf.org>
List-Id: CICM Discussion List <cicm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cicm>, <mailto:cicm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cicm>
List-Post: <mailto:cicm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cicm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cicm>, <mailto:cicm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 18:22:49 -0000

Girish,

On 2011-06-06 at 12:47, Girish Nanjundiah wrote:
> [...] if we are to add _set and _get methods for the classes
> as Lev said then we do need to modify the header file in order to add
> the function signatures.

Correct. The header file is just a barebones version of a CICM driver; 
vendors may need to add more CICM-defined methods to make the whole 
harness work (as a last resort).

Lev