[SWMP] semantic layers

["Jay C. Weber" <[e-mail]>]

Jon: there are many issues in your note so I will respond in pieces, so we can discuss issues separately and without undue reading burden on the others :-)

[e-mail] wrote:

A)  As originally specified, swmp does not distinguish between requesting a state change and being notified of a state change.  It tends to treat the state sharing as largely a replication task with neither network element having a controlling role over the state.  I think it is more realistic and practical to assume that each network element has control over its state and the other network element may request changes and be notified when changes happen.

I agree that distinction is important.  The original SWMP doesn't take a position on which elements have a controlling role, leaving that to the semantics of the architecture.  My intent was to separate the two layers of semantics, so that the protocol would be kept simple and be applicable to many different architectures.

E.g., a peer-peer architecture would specify, as you say, that "each network element has control over its state and the other network element may request changes and be notified when changes happen", but some client-server architectures (including most MMOGs) vest all control over state in the server element.  That is, a state message from the server is always an authoritative notification, and a state message from a client is always a provisional request.  In such an architecture, network elements get this semantics from their known roles, they don't need to get it from inside the messages.

jay

--
Jay C. Weber, Ph.D.
CTO, Media Machines Inc.
650-279-2311

_______________________________________________
SWMP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/swmp