Re: Clarification of some Command actions in the Network Port object
- I have just uploaded proposed text for 12.X.12 Command as
This got way more complicated than I expected. I signed up to draft some introductory language about return to IDLE, but in so doing I found what appear to be a number of inconsistencies and ambiguities. The document is my attempt to clarify the sub-clause. Here is what I did:
1. My belief is that if an Error (Result(-)) is returned, then NO CHANGE should be made to any properties of the object. I have updated the text to reflect this. For example, if you write ROLLBACK, and the device doesn't support ROLLBACK, you will get an Error, but the object will remain unchanged (Changes_Pending set, Reliability unaffected, and the object using whatever values it was using when Changes_Pending first got set.) Previous language called for Reliability to change. If you DO support rollback, but CAN'T for some reason, then Reliability would change.
2. I have broken the descriptions into paragraphs in an attempt to enhance readability. This was done in 135-2010 clauses 12.26.4 and 12.31.14. (12.26.4 also doesn't indent the descriptive text to the right of the longest value names. This allows more text on a line, and may also enhance readability. The clause uses a paragraph with hanging first line rather than a table. I have an example of how this might be done at the end of the document).
3. I moved most of the applies-to-all text from AFTER the value-specific text to the BEGINNING of the subclause, following the example of clause 12 etc. The idea is that the initial text gives the general rules, and the value-specific text gives details that apply only to each value
4. The draft uses "error response" various places in 12.X.7, 12.X.9 and 12.X.12. I believe that these should all be "Result(-)" following the usages elsewhere. In clause 12 (12.10, 12.12.8, 12.15.13, etc). I have updated the text that follows to use Result(-).
There are also a number of JLH comments where I am unsure about direction