Agreed.
I'm going to make a bold claim here: 19 out 20 queries will be for status retrieval. However that is very easy to extract from a query containing all the local information, so I don't really see the value of "give me some of the local information" vs. "give me all the local information". Just give it all, and I can extract what I need.
On 2012-05-18, at 6:02 AM, Henrik Thostrup Jensen wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012, MacAuley, John (John) wrote:
Can I propose we support three Query operation types? Currently we have two (Summary and Details) or which no one has implemented the recursive Details. I think we should revise the definition to the following:
I'm going to make a bold claim here: 19 out 20 queries will be for status retrieval. However that is very easy to extract from a query containing all the local information, so I don't really see the value of "give me some of the local information" vs. "give me all the local information". Just give it all, and I can extract what I need.
On a side note: I have intended to look at the queryresult types before suggesting this, but haven't gotten around to it: Are the two query result types so different that they couldn't be one? (making the tree optional).
Best regards, Henrik
Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net> Software Developer, NORDUnet
_______________________________________________ nsi-wg mailing list nsi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg