Re: Proposal to do away with netconf attributes in data model payloads

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Glenn Waters" <gww@nortelnetworks.com>
> To: <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>; "Andy Bierman" <abierman@cisco.com>
> Cc: "Gilbert Gagnon" <gagnong@nortelnetworks.com>; <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:05 PM
> Subject: RE: Proposal to do away with netconf attributes in data model payloads
>

> I believe that naming is comprised of two pieces:
> - the path to the object
> - one or attributes of the object
>
> Also, if I understand correctly and if we decide to follow the xpath
> specification then the following is also true:
> - the path is not necessarily part of the data model; that is, the head of
> the path is where the object sits in the hierarchy (not part of the model)
> and the tail of the path can be within the object (part of the model);
> - the attributes that can be used for naming an object can be any attribute
> of the object

We need to be *very* careful here.  If it is possible to construct multiple
names for a single object instance, the handling of relationships (and comparing
configurations to determine whether they are equivalent) gets ugly fast.

> So all the above says that naming that we need to make some decisions about
> naming however I think that naming is just part of the model and not part of
> the protocol. Naming must be transported in the protocol.
>
> The above all assumes that we are following an xpath model.
...

and still begs the question about which normalization form is in use.  I think
this has to be nailed down at the protocol level.

Randy



--
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/>