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

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 01:46 AM 3/17/2004, 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 think we have WG consensus that we should remove this restriction
from the protocol draft.  Instead, the draft should say that
it is a data-model specific matter as to which operation types
are valid at which granularity, etc.  In other words,  
this is a data model (not protocol) conformance issue.


>/js

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/>