IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Wed, 08 February 2017 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E741129CCC for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:22:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CJUYjXu7LVNJ for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:22:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DEC112956C for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:22:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tops.chopps.org (97-83-46-222.dhcp.trcy.mi.charter.com [97.83.46.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8FFDC623D7; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 18:22:02 +0000 (UTC)
References: <f7bc785b-f729-3959-53af-58dff99d7ab4@ericsson.com> <8737foixpg.fsf@chopps.org> <20170208145104.GE98457@elstar.local> <20170208.161101.1862603410685888666.mbj@tail-f.com> <20170208151533.GG98457@elstar.local> <15a1e579a30.27fd.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.19; emacs 25.1.1
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
In-reply-to: <15a1e579a30.27fd.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 13:22:01 -0500
Message-ID: <87wpd0h7au.fsf@chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/MQP6J5zw0uikYkmmRmXb5SrNR7Y>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 18:22:05 -0000

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> writes:

> On February 8, 2017 10:16:14 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder
> <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> ...
>>
>> We should perhaps start a separate thread but I fail to see why tags
>> require new editing primitives.
>
> It was an intentional design choice/preference by one of the authors.
> Basically, Chris thought it was easier from a client perspective.  He's the
> user, so he won:-)

The tags in the library and the tags in a module are updated at the same
time and represent logically the same list of tags. Its clear this
happens with an RPC. It seems a lot less clear this would (or should)
happen if one edited only once location.

Thanks,
Chris.

>
> Lou
> (Co author)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email