Re: comments on version 2 of protocol draft

[Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>]

>>>>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 16:15:25 -0800, Rob Enns <rpe@juniper.net> said:

>> A note on defaults.  In many places, there are default values or
>> operands that are assigned unless specified otherwise.  As a
>> programmer, I always found defaults difficult to remember once I've
>> developed something and am on to the next project.  Unspecified
>> defaults (I feel) make support and maintenace pretty darn difficult
>> and add to confusion later on.  For example, lets say you are in the
>> field and debugging something by looking at a stream of XML.  W/o the
>> spec handy, one could have a difficult time recalling what exactly the
>> default value is.  Consequently, my personal vote is that defaults be
>> eliminated and that all values, operations, options be required to be
>> explicitly defined.  For a computer, its not big deal; for humans, it
>> adds a lot of clarity.

Rob> I agree with this. Does anyone on the list have a problem with 
Rob> removing the default parameter values?

Another comment, is it an error if the spec revs and adds a new field
(which could have had a default for "how it used to act before the
spec rev") and an old manager doesn't send a value for that field?

-- 
"In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to hold than the soap,
 and much more difficult to find."  -- Terry Pratchett

--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>