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

Wed Sep 28 07:11:54 CDT 2011

W dniu 2011-09-28 11:18, Michael Bischoff pisze:
> Hello all,
>

Hi,

> 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>"/
> ?

I see your point but
- I don't think it's a big problem to have a parser which reads a 
complete status code and then check each part of it (do we expect the 
use of streaming parser here? )
- NMC and NM already use the version number as the last part so the 
change of it only for status code would be inconsistent. Moving the 
location of the version number in NMC and NM now would be a huge change 
and I don't think we need that in the moment.

> 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.

This is reasonable.  Dates are inconsistent with that what we already 
have in NM and NMC (2.0). So maybe 2.1 would be fine (as an update of 
2.0)? I would also agree to drop the idea of additional part for a 
testing version.

Cheers,
Roman

> 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
>>