Re: Netconf! Part Deux

[Simon Leinen <simon@limmat.switch.ch>]

Andrea Westerinen writes:
> Phil, I would like to comment on your ABO vs OOV argument.  I agree
> that for simple add/modify/delete operations (diff and patch kind of
> things) that verbs and OO operations are heavyweight. But will this
> be the entire extent of NetConf, or just be the first level/basic
> requirements?  If the answer is "no"

[It would be clearer to say something like "the latter" in response to
an either/or question.]

> (that NetConf will expand in capabilities in later releases, and
> other operations or even abstractions of operations will be needed),
> then a concept of verbs is necessary. Maybe you have some basic +/-
> capabilities built into NetConf, and still allow for OOV.  For
> configuration tasks where you have input parameters, output
> parameters, return codes on the method (like "Not Supported" :-),
> then OOVs make a world of difference.

I don't see this as a reason to change the current set of operations
to use the "object-oriented verbs" approach.

If we want to extend NETCONF in this way at some point in the future,
we can always add new operations which follow that approach.

Or we may even decide that extending NETCONF with these capabilities
(when we know more about what those capabilities are) is actually less
attractive than using/defining some other protocol.

Call me a short-sighted operator, but let's get back to doing NETCONF
1.0, a network configuration protocol, rather than NETCONFng, the
Foundation Protocol for everything related to network management.
-- 
Simon.

--
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/>