Subject: [netmod] Augmentation of Optional Key

From: "Aseem Choudhary (asechoud)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 19:29:04 +0000

Hi all,

I am not sure if this has been discussed during the proposal of Optional key.

Are we planning to support optional key augmentation to a module ? If yes, how does it look like. If no, why not?

-thanks,
Aseem

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 22:07:58 +0200

> Are we planning to support optional key augmentation to a module ? If yes, how does it look like. If no, why not?

The main issue is that a key defines (as part of the contract between
client and server) what uniquely identifies a list element. It is
difficult to change this contract. During the virtual interim on
September 3rd, we discussed that adding additional optional keys to a
key is difficult since it breaks the expections of an old client when
it talks to a new server. The same argument will hold for optional key
augmentations - a client not knowing about the key augmentation will
see multiple elements in a list with the same key, which is
problematic.

Despite this, we discussed at some length during the New York interim
that we need to extend the instance-identifier syntax to support
optional keys. I need to start a separate thread to discuss this and
in particular the implications of this for existing implementations.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: "Aseem Choudhary (asechoud)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 06:46:17 +0000

Thanks JS. I hope we find way out of backward compatibility concern. I
will look forward to such discussion.

-regards,
Aseem

On 10/4/14, 1:07 PM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Are we planning to support optional key augmentation to a module ? If
>>yes, how does it look like. If no, why not?
>> 
>