Andy says:
> This requires Xpath in every box, which is going to be
> a deal-breaker for some vendors.
>
> I'd like to hear from operators who are thinking of using
There are operators on this list?? Seriously, we keep pointing questions to the operators when in reality I think that for the most part they have done their bit -- they gave us the requirements and we need to come back with a solution.
> NETCONF in scripting applications. Which is easier
> for you to implement?
> a - the Xpath _expression_ plus a data model element tree,
> b - the Xpath _expression_ plus just the <value> data to change (like
> the example above)
> c - the operation attribute inside the data model element tree?
Hmmm. I can barely figure out which one to pick and I have been very actively following this list. I think I pick (a) but that is only because I know I don't want (c) and option (b) I don't fully understand the implementation ramifications (and besides you already state a problem with it and I'll go with that for lack of a better reason :)
> One problem with the approach 'b' above is that it doesn't meet the
> operator requirement that the output from a <get-config>
> operation should be usable as input back into an <edit-config>
> command. The config representation has to be identical
> for edit and get.
Regards, /gww