[Nmc-wg] Result Code Redux - One last issue

[Michael Bischoff]

Hello all,

I wanted to post this earlier but didn't got around to it,

Perhaps something to consider: having the version at the end makes it
more difficult to change the structure and to support multiply
versions in one client/service, especially if you don't force it to be
strictly a last single part:

 "http://schemas.ogf.org/nmc/status/"<STATUS_CATEGORY>"/"<STATUS_NAME>"/"<VERSION>"

and

201109/beta -> 201109.beta or 201109-beta (mandate that the version
bit will not consist out of '/' I would also recommend standardizing
the separation sign for this)
(ps don't think we need a day in there unless you want to make
multiply updates in a single month - which seems unlikely.)

>From a easy-to-parse point of view:
We need the version first to establish if we can interpret the status
regardless if the status we encounter is known. As such the version is
a more significant bit then what is currently left to it, as such I
would not put it at the end. Also client programmers might be tempted
to ignore the version bit given the version is at the end or least
significant spot, esp since we allow them to already ignore certain
preceding parts. Ignoring the version will lead to poorly functioning
clients. Moving the version to the left doesn't prevent this but does
require them to actively ignore it while at the same time doesn't
force them to do more work to ignore it.

"http://schemas.ogf.org/nmc/status/"<VERSION>"/"<STATUS_CATEGORY>"/"<STATUS_NAME>"/
(or do we tie things to a version of nmc as a whole:
"http://schemas.ogf.org/nmc/"<VERSION>"/status/"<STATUS_CATEGORY>"/"<STATUS_NAME>"/
?

Also dates are good and bad - for example with dates you can't declare
forwards compatibility - 1.0 1.1, 1.2 - structure stayed the same all
messages in 1.0 are available in 1.1 1.2. So if you encounter a known
status and only the last part has changed it's safe to interpret. 1.0
-> 2.0 semantics and or structure has changed. Then again - forcing
clients to update might not be a bad thing at all.

Best regards,

Michael

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Jason Zurawski <zurawski at internet2.edu> wrote:
> Hi Roman;
>
> Thanks for doing this, I will try to send an updated version by the end
> of the week, and include this in the formal document.  Thanks;
>
> -jason
>
> On 9/27/11 12:32 PM, thus spake Roman Łapacz:
>> W dniu 2011-09-23 14:22, Jason Zurawski pisze:
>>> Hi Roman;
>>>
>>> I think this is a good idea, would you be able to make the changes to
>>> the document and sent it back to the list?
>>
>> Attached (needs polishing).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Roman
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks;
>>>
>>> -jason
>>>
>>> On 9/23/11 12:29 PM, thus spake Roman Łapacz:
>>>> W dniu 2011-09-23 11:32, Jason Zurawski pisze:
>>>>> Gang;
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In typing up the final version of the status codes into the document,
>>>>> I hit upon a snag. Here is an example of what was proposed in the
>>>>> prior mail:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://schemas.ogf.org/nmc/2011/09/status/informational/protocol
>>>>> version/
>>>>>
>>>>> This goes against our typical method of constructing namespaces. I
>>>>> would suggest we do this instead:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://schemas.ogf.org/nmc/status/informational/protocol
>>>>> version/2011/09/
>>>>>
>>>>> Or even better using:
>>>>>
>>>>> 201109
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> 20110923
>>>>
>>>> Right. Good you spotted this. I prefer to have just one field for
>>>> version number (201109 or 20110923) with an exception for early testing
>>>> versions (201109/beta or 20110923/beta).
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As the 'version' string. I am attaching an updated document going
>>>>> with the first suggestion, I prefer the last best of all. Other
>>>>> opinions?
>>>>
>>>> What do you think to replace the code hierarchy with the pattern in the
>>>> beginning of section 2. Example:
>>>>
>>>> --example---------------------
>>>>
>>>> "http://schemas.ogf.org/nmc/status/"<STATUS_CATEGORY>"/"<STATUS_NAME>"/"<VERSION>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <STATUS_CATEGORY> may have the following text values:
>>>> - informational
>>>> - successful
>>>> - redirection
>>>> - clienterror
>>>> - servererror
>>>>
>>>> <STATUS_NAME> depends on the status category and may have the following
>>>> text values:
>>>> - informational category
>>>> -- protocol version
>>>> -- data limitation
>>>> -- service_contact
>>>> - client error category
>>>> -- bad_message
>>>> -- bad request
>>>> -- authentication_failed
>>>> -- unauthorized
>>>> -- message not allowed
>>>> -- event_type_not_allowed
>>>> -- event_type_not_allowed
>>>> -- request_too_large
>>>> -- request_timeout
>>>> -- protocol_not_allowed
>>>> -- chaining_not_understood
>>>> - servererror category
>>>> -- data_fetch_error
>>>> -- too_busy
>>>> -- administrative_down
>>>> Two categories, successful and redirection, do not need to have
>>>> certain status names.
>>>>
>>>> VERSION is a string presenting information about the version of
>>>> protocol, e.g. 201109 or 20110925. In case of early testing version an
>>>> optional part after "/" may be added (e.g. 201109/beta or
>>>> 20110925/beta) .
>>>>
>>>> -- end---------------------
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking about such update because version numbers don't look good
>>>> in the structure. They are not generic. The use of pattern solves this
>>>> issue. What do you think? (of course a short description below the
>>>> pattern in my example may be done much better; I just wanted to present
>>>> my idea).
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Roman
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks;
>>>>>
>>>>> -jason
> _______________________________________________
> Nmc-wg mailing list
> Nmc-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
>