Subject: Re: Protocol Operations

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:17:47 -0800

F_REPLACE / F_CREATE, etc can be represented as CREATE, REPLACE
Operations instead of Flags in the several PATHs contained in a SET
Operation TLV. Is there any value in having these as flags rather than
the top level operation itself ? I have stated the cons of doing this.

regards
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jamal Hadi Salim
> 
> Having Flags in the PATH which define Operations, such as F_REPLACE,
> F_CREATE, F_APPEND, F_PREPEND  seems quite inefficient to me. These
> should be part of the top-level Operation itself, which defines the
> Operation TLV. The protocol should not have to parse each PATH to
figure
> out what the operation is.

The operation actually comes before the path-data. DEL for example is an
operation; SET is another etc.
This is then followed by the stuff you are seeing posted around which
includes flags.
The flags do not define the operation perse; they may refine it.
Similarly, selectors may refine the path to the data.

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:33:01 -0500

> the top level operation itself ? I have stated the cons of doing this.

You cannot remove the flags. If you could it may make sense to move
those two to the operations level. As it stands right now, either have
equal merit. If you look at the examples i posted, it is possible infact
to replace and create different items within one SET operation - but i
dont think this in itself stands as a reason for their existence. 

cheers,
jamal