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

["Rob Enns" <rpe@juniper.net>]

It's better because the edit-config operation 
allows the creation of a single "patch" to the device 
configuration which can encompass more than one 
operation type.

This is handy when scripting, and avoids carving a
given configuration change up into several pieces,
one for each operation type. 

Also it's natural for an XML-aware application to go 
from an internal DOM tree representing desired changes
to the configuration snippet that would be passed
to edit-config.

Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 1:06 AM
> To: Rob Enns
> Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-netconf-prot-02.txt
> 
> 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/>