Re: comments on draft-ietf-netconf-prot-02.txt

[Rob Enns <rpe@juniper.net>]

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 10:43:11AM -0800, Rob Enns wrote:
>  
>  
>
> > > d) The edit-config(target, options, config) with the merge / replace 
> > >   / delete attribute operations looks a bit strange (like others have 
> > >   noted before). This really smells like a compound operation which 
> > >   combines merge/replace/delete operations into a single rpc call. I 
> > >   recently looked closer at NFSv4 protocol (RFC 3530) which has such 
> > >   a compound operation and NETCONF might be actually simpler by 
> > >   adopting a model which makes compound operations first class 
> > >   citizens.
> > >      
> > This was discussed a little in Seoul, the current restriction on
> > edit-config is that all values of the operation attribute in a single
> > edit-config operation must have the same value. Is removing that 
> > restriction what you have in mind?
> >    
>
> With this restriction, you really have separate merge / replace and 
> delete operations. So why not call them by name, e.g. merge-config,
> replace-config and delete-config? Why do you still want to specify
> these semantics as attributes???

I'm in favor of removing the restriction that the operation attributes 
be identical.
If that's not going to fly with the WG, then using separate base 
operations is a
better design.

I will remove the restriction in the next version of the protocol draft 
unless
the WG objects...

Rob


--
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/>