Re: b/w example values

[Bobby Krupczak <rdk@krupczak.org>]

Hi!

> Bobby> will effect adoption?
> 
> Yes.

> Bobby> What environments are you working in that you think the needs are
> Bobby> drastically different?  I think this discussion is important.
> 
> low-power, low-bandwidth, low-connectivity,
> frequently-dropped-packets, ...

> However, in xml that encoding is quite a bit bigger by the way if you
> include the tags:

Interesting.  I would then argue that all of xml is not appropriate
for these situations and netconf was never appropriate (defaults or no
defaults).

XML is ugly to start with.  Going with XML already means one has
bitten the byte bullet.

> (The ascii encoding is > 2.5 times larger even when compressed.)

Right.  But in most environments, thats not a big deal.  Defaults or
no defaults probably wont drastically change this ratio.

> Would you believe some of my environments deal with 128kb.  Heck, some
> are still using 50 baud modems (but fortunately, I don't need to worry
> about them).

Folks still live in the stone ages.  Sometimes this choose to.

> [btw, I don't think we need to argue about how lame SNMP is at
> encoding data too...  It has its drawbacks as well that are very well
> known.  Many papers have proven this, but we're not discussing SNMP here] 

Actually, I believe it is still relevant in that its an example of
encoding and overall bandwidth percentages.  Until we have better
usage data for netconf, any numbers would be guesses.

> Not me.  It still lets me know our target operating environments
> differ (I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me otherwise.  I
> have no problem admitting that in your large bandwidth environment you
> have no problems with adding as much data as you can.  I agree, it
> probably isn't a problem for you.  You're welcome to send all data
> including defaults with your data because you don't care.  Mandating
> it into the standard means you affect me, however, and the
> environments I operate in which are different).

So, I believe your points are more applicable to a xml/no-xml debate
rather than defaults/no-defaults debate.  Given that we're already
using a fat xml encoding, mucking with defaults or no defaults isnt
going to help you very much either way.

Thanks,

Bobby

--
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/>