Re: same value operation attributes restriction

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 04:42 PM 3/26/2004, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>
>> From: "Andy Bierman" <abierman@cisco.com>
>> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
>> Cc: <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
>> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 4:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: same value operation attributes restriction
>...
>> SNMP allows an arbitrary mix of arbitrarily incomplete high-level
>> operations. NETCONF allows an arbitrary mix of complete high-level
>> operations.  This is easier to implement.  I also said this was one
>> of the factors, not the only one.  Vendors will implement this if
>> there is enough customer demand.
>...
>
>I don't see how a bundle of creates / merges / updates is guaranteed
>to be any more "complete" than the set of variable bindings conveyed
>by an SNMP set request, unless you're making some serious information
>model assumptions in the protocol.  But the central question remains:
>how is the vendor incentive to do it "right" any greater than it was for SNMP?

1) The NETCONF protocol distinguishes between create, modify,
and delete.   The granularity for create and modify are
not necessarily the same.  The notion of completeness
is data-model specific.

2) There is a big difference between as-if-simultaneous 
and serialized execution with rollback.  NETCONF requirements
are not as strict as SNMP.

3) Customers will expect to use NETCONF for configuration.  
This is not usually the case for SNMP.  


>Randy

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/>