Re: [Forces-protocol] RE: GET/SET in one msg ?

["Weiming Wang" <[e-mail]>]

Joel,

> Even when there are large numbers of LFB instances of a given class in an
> FE that need to be set, I have trouble envisioning that they will need to
> be set to the identical values.  Some of the values will be the same.  But
> some will be different.
> If at least one value differs, then you need an operation directed at each
> individual LFB Instance.  If this is infeasible, then we have a basic
> problem that multicast at this level will not help.  If this is feasible,
> then multicast at this level seems a refinement that can wait until we know
> if we need it.
I agree your mean of 'Even when' here, therefore the 'unpractical'  I mean may
not exist. I actually don't think the extremity is a good prove for the benifits
of multiple addressing.  I just can see the great benifits even when there are
100 instances. I think it may be much helpful if you could present some drawback
for such approach. What I can see it is only a very little bit of complexity
added to the instance select field. May be I'm too pedantic :)   Anyway, I don't
think we need to wait more if we find it valuble.

Thank you.
Weiming




_______________________________________________
Forces-protocol mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol