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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>]

On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 02:33:18PM -0800, Rob Enns wrote:
 
> 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...

Can someone explain why

	edit-config(... <foo operation="merge" /> 
		       <bar operation="replace"/>
		       <baz operation="delete"/> ...)

is better than:

	merge-config(... <foo/> ...)
	replace-config(... <bar/> ...)
	delete-config(... <baz/> ...)

I am seriously concerned that we blur the line between the protocol (the
verbs) and the data carried and manipulated by the protocol verbs. So I
like to see a real strong reason for such a design.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

--
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/>