Task #1397: NFD ControlCommand client - ndn-cxx - NDN project issue tracking system

Task #1397

closed

NFD ControlCommand client

Added by Junxiao Shi about 10 years ago. Updated about 10 years ago.

Status:

Closed

Priority:

High

Assignee:

Junxiao Shi

Category:

Target version:

Start date:

03/23/2014

Due date:

% Done:

100%

Estimated time:

4.00 h

Description

Update nfd::Controller to use combined "NFD Management protocol" ControlCommand.

History
Notes
Property changes

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Junxiao Shi about 10 years ago

Status changed from New to In Progress
Assignee set to Junxiao Shi
Start date set to 03/23/2014

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Junxiao Shi about 10 years ago

Status changed from In Progress to Code review
% Done changed from 0 to 40
Estimated time changed from 3.00 h to 4.00 h

I8d18fb2af799631bb9b94fad72f44c496e154a07 implements nfd::ControlParameters.

FaceManagementOptions & FibManagementOptions & StrategyChoiceOptions are aliases of ControlParameters.
These aliases will be deleted when nfd::Controller and NFD finishes transition.

Next change of this task is to update nfd::Controller.

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Anonymous about 10 years ago

(Below comments moved from gerrit to foster discussion)

Overall, I like the centralized parameter class. It has definitely helped clean up the NFD-side code, but I feel like we've lost some usability in the process. The NFD side is going to need to validate that it has received the correct parameters for its protocol and that they have sane values.

It would be nice if the NFD side could say "I expect these fields" and have them validated. Similarly, the parameters should be self-documenting for clients. If you wanted to implement a fib management client, you would need to look at the wiki documentation to determine the necessary parameters (arguably a feature :) ). At the same time, there is value in understanding what is needed/used by looking at the class definition.

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Junxiao Shi about 10 years ago

Status changed from Code review to In Progress

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Junxiao Shi about 10 years ago

Status changed from In Progress to Code review
% Done changed from 40 to 50

I need a design review on Ieca08f5db530c14d1cd16ddd7af17e4ffe6eb344 patchset 1.

Every command will have a ControlCommand subclass that has detailed validation of request and response.

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Alex Afanasyev about 10 years ago

I just noticed. Why do we allow arbitrary faceId in enable|disable-local-control-feature (http://redmine.named-data.net/projects/nfd/wiki/FaceMgmt#Enable-a-LocalControlHeader-feature) ??

I would mandate this parameter to be 0 or the same as self FaceId. Otherwise, authorized client can do bad things to other apps.

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Junxiao Shi about 10 years ago

Protocol should not have such a restriction.

It should be two different privileges to faces/enable-local-control or fib/add-nexthop on self and on other face.

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Alex Afanasyev about 10 years ago

Why would you ever mess up with other applications??? For me this is conceptually wrong.

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Junxiao Shi about 10 years ago

Status changed from Code review to In Progress

Actions

Copy link

#10

Updated by Junxiao Shi about 10 years ago

Status changed from In Progress to Code review
% Done changed from 50 to 70

Ieca08f5db530c14d1cd16ddd7af17e4ffe6eb344

ControlCommand subclasses for all commands are defined.

I also updated protocol:
faces/enable-local-control and faces/disable-local-control forbid FaceId field.
These two commands can only operate on requesting face.

Actions

Copy link

#11