Re: [ippm] AD review: draft-ietf-ippm-storetraceroutes-03

["Jeff W. Boote" <boote at internet2.edu>]

Lars Eggert wrote:
> On 2007-9-28, at 15:55, ext Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
> > I agree that it should be clear from the data that the user didn't set
> > this parameter.
>
> Shouldn't the data be set to the value that was the default of the 
> particular traceroute implementation for that parameter?
>
> >   So, how about setting all elements by default to
> > something that is clearly "impossible"?

IMHO, the point of having a default in an information model is to show the 
values that were not 'captured' by the application doing the measurement.

Therefore the defaults should be a special value of some sort. But, there should 
be a way to determine 'error' special values from simply 'missing' special values.

'error' is probably not relevant for these particular values, but I bring up 
this issue simply because I think it is important that the normative text make 
the point that these special values do not indicate an error, but simply data 
that was not collected.

jeff

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm at ietf.org 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm