[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: 8.1) <get-all>

At 07:20 PM 2/20/2004, Tim Stoddard wrote:
>There seems to be some growing concensus that the current operations are
>limiting and IMHO the position that combinations don't make sense is due to
>the lack of flexibility of operation attributes, e.g. defining the target
>prior to the operation mandates a limited set of standardized targets to
>operate against. Isn't this constraining the flexibility that xml offers and
>reducing capabilities for queries, filtering, sub-tree retrieval and
>locking? Shouldn't we define the operations and allow the targets to
>data-model centric?

I don't agree that there is growing consensus for this.
We discussed this tradeoff of interoperability vs. flexibility
at the interim meeting.  We made a conscious decision to limit
vendor flexibility in order to increase our chances of multi-vendor
interoperability.  We want to spell out very specific configuration
related operations that all vendors must support the same.


>I also find it hard to understand the position of not choosing the more
>elegant solution because it would make the document harder to read.

Because the documentation would either be vague or full of
all kinds of special case sections, and we have to explain
why most of the protocol operations don't make sense on
most of the targets.  I think what we have now is quite
readable, and it's easy enough for an implementor to
figure out what needs to be done for a given operation.


>I think if we are considering a get and we have a get-config then we should
>invest in a robust set of operations against targets with granularity that
>matches the tool sets available and doesn't restrict existing and future
>data models.

We have get-config because of a specific operator requirement
to be able to retrieve configuration data without any state
information mixed in, because this state info often causes
false positives when the config is diffed against an archived
version.

I think there is WG consensus that we have the right set
of protocol operations for v1.0.  It don't see how this
set restricts data model development.


>Tim

Andy



>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org]On
>Behalf Of Andy Bierman
>Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 1:27 PM
>To: Chen, Weijing
>Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: RE: 8.1) <get-all>
>
>
>At 07:54 AM 2/20/2004, Chen, Weijing wrote:
>>I would concur Tim's view.  <get>, <edit>, <delete>, <copy>, <create> with
>>the proper target: config (default), named config, state, etc.
>
>I agree that this approach is more elegant than what
>we have now, but IMO it would make the document harder
>to read if we used this approach.  There are many
>combinations that either don't make sense (e.g.,
>create, edit, delete or copy state) or are not supported
>in v1.0 (e.g. create user-db).
>
>As for <get>, it is the same as SNMP GET -- a get all
>operation.  <get> will return everything in the
>requested subtree(s), whereas <get-config> will only
>return elements which are deemed to be configuration
>data instead of state data.  It's still a data-model
>language detail as to how an element is deemed to
>be configuration data.
>
>
>
>
>>Weijing
>
>Andy
>
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Tim Stoddard [mailto:tstoddar@utstar.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:16 PM
>>To: 'Margaret Wasserman'; 'Andy Bierman'
>>Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org
>>Subject: RE: 8.1) <get-all>
>>
>>All,
>>
>>I have to ask if we have get-config, edit-config, delete-config,
>>copy-config, and these are all relative to a target (running or named
>>config) then what is the target for 'get'? Is this implicitely 'state'
>>information, are there potentials for using get in terms of filtering
>>(subtree retreival). It sounds like we are starting to define operators
>>against the data rather than a container of the data. If this is the case
>>won't we have to address the create issue as was brought up on the list and
>>then the mod and delete issue?
>>
>>If this is the path we are going down then the original operations appear
>>restrictive, why have get-config when you can have get <target>, edit
>><target>, delete <target> where target can be a container like the reserved
>>'running-config' or a file, or a data element.
>>
>>I didn't open this can of worm soup but I have to stir the pot.
>>
>>thanks,
>>
>>Tim
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org]On
>>Behalf Of Margaret Wasserman
>>Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 10:25 PM
>>To: Andy Bierman
>>Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org
>>Subject: Re: 8.1) <get-all>
>>
>>
>>
>>I agree that <get> would be better.
>>
>>Margaret
>>
>>At 12:37 PM 2/9/2004 -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I think we should change the name of this operation
>>>from <get-all> to a simple <get>.  This aligns better
>>>with terminology and behavior of a get command in
>>>other protocols.
>>>
>>>I know the status says this is closed, but <get-all>
>>>is redundant and non-intuitive.  We should fix this
>>>before it's too late.
>>>
>>>Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>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/>
>>
>>
>>--
>>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/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>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/>
>>
>>--
>>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/>
>
>
>--
>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/>


--
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/>