Re: Proposal: valid-until time for an allocation

[Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>]

At Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:40:01 -0400, Rob Austein wrote:
> 
> At Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:15:36 +0200, Róbert Kisteleki wrote:
> > 
> > (list-resources :self-id 42		; issuer id
> > 		&optional		; If left off, we're asking
> >                                          ; about self rather than child
> > 		:child id)		; subject id
> > => (((:ipv4-address "10.0.0.44/32" "10.3.0.44/32")
> >       (:ipv6-address "fe80:dead:beef::/24")
> >       (:as-number "666")
> >       (:valid-until "date-in-some-form")
> >       (:class-name "experimental")
> >      )
> >      ...)
> 
> The :valid-until extension sounds right.
> 
> I don't see the need for :class-name.  What does the RE do with it?

Back up.  We've decided several times now that we don't need to break
resources into different classes by expiration dates, so the only
reason for having different classes is to support resources obtained
from multiple sources.  So, by refraining from reopening that can of
worms, the response remains the entire resource set, with one
expiration time for the whole set, and the above simplifies to:

(list-resources :self-id 42		; issuer id
		&optional		; If left off, we're asking about self rather than child
		:child id)		; subject id
=> ((:ipv4-address "10.0.0.44/32" "10.3.0.44/32")
    (:ipv6-address "fe80:dead:beef::/24")
    (:as-number "666")
    (:valid-until "date")
    ...)