Task #1311
closed
- Description updated (diff)
- Due date deleted (
03/02/2014)
- Start date deleted (
03/02/2014)
- Status changed from New to In Progress
What's the relationship between the strategy choice table and the manager?
The relationship between StrategyChoice table and StrategyChoiceManager is similar to the relationship between FIB and FibManager.
- Status changed from In Progress to Feedback
- % Done changed from 0 to 70
Why don't we have one NfdManagementOptions data structure that is properly reused across all protocols? I feel it is weird and unnecessary to define separate data structures, especially if they (partially) share the same data set.
At least for the strategy choice I would suggest reusing FibManagementOptions...
A common options type would be great. I have no objection to reusing FibManagementOptions for now.
Yes, we have too many "protocols" for management. I plan to combine FibMgmt StrategyChoice FaceMgmt into a single NFD Management protocol, without changing the syntax and semantics of any command.
- Status changed from Feedback to Code review
- % Done changed from 70 to 100
- Status changed from Code review to Closed
- Status changed from Closed to Feedback
Icc88f201f3c13a5a25ec1bdadec35f93c76b2b94 is incorrect that it uses FibManagementOptions in place of StrategyChoiceOptions.
Although they both have Strategy field, their TLV-TYPE numbers are different and thus they are incompatible.
Please change StrategyChoiceManager to use StrategyChoiceOptions, which will be added with I20c7d76b7a5740202e194c1016399df3684d63d8.
- Status changed from Feedback to Code review
- Status changed from Code review to Closed
Also available in: Atom
PDF
Updated by 
Updated by Anonymous 
Updated by