Re: Poll for consensus on edit operations

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

Andy Bierman writes:
> I now agree with Juergen that it is highly undesirable
> to require protocol-specific attributes in data-model
> elements to implement any NETCONF protocol operation.

I still prefer the approach of having the operations and their
starting points encoded within the configuration objects (whether as
attributes or as elements, I don't care).

> It is better to keep the data models as protocol independent
> as possible, to avoid dependencies on specialty tools
> that will limit the deployment of NETCONF.  It is better
> to use more complex mechanisms (like XPath) that are likely 
> be supported by general-purpose XML standards-based tools.

Although this sounds nice from a client-side development point of
view, it means additional complexity on the agent side.

As an operator, I want as little stuff as possible between me and the
configuration beyond what's necessary (most of which is already in
today's CLI configuration engines).

What I certainly don't want is a situation as with SNMP today (with
many/most device vendors), where the instrumentation has to be done by
SNMP specialists, rather than by the people who implement the base
functionality of the device.

Thus adding an XPath subset to NETCONF would be a step in the wrong
direction.
-- 
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/>