Re: sub-tree filtering proposals

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 03:45 PM 6/3/2004, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 03:31:23PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>> The problem with XPath (as we went through before)
>> is that we are not going to specify a NETCONF-only subset
>> of XPath.  We are not going to require every box to
>> implement XPath.  This subtree filtering is intentionally
>> very limited so it's easy to implement.
>
>You do not want to subset XPATH to reduce the implementation costs and
>at the same time you propose a different filter mechanism to reduce the 
>implementation cost (which at the end might map to a subset of XPATH).
>
>OK, lets not restart this discussion without a beer. Lets see whether 
>there are any other technical comments on your proposal. It seems this
>mailing list is way too quiet.

I agree the list is too quiet!

Note that sub-tree filtering has been in the spec all along, 
but it hasn't been documented yet (except in examples).  I tried
to document the behavior the document examples have shown
but never explained in detail.

I would be in favor of standardizing both subtree and Xpath
filtering at this time.  The only extra work:

  - #xpath capability: if set, the agent supports filter-type="xpath"
    for any operation that takes the <filter> parameter
  - <filter filter-type="xpath">
      ... xpath expression ...
    </filter>

I don't want to make Xpath mandatory, but I think we should still
use it for complex filtering.


>/js

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/>