> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:abierman@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 16:35
> To: Waters, Glenn [CAR:IO47:EXCH]
> Cc: Wes Hardaker; netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: sub-tree filtering proposals
>
> At 01:23 PM 6/4/2004, Glenn Waters wrote:
>
> >I guess the point around the XPath proposal has always been why don't we
> line up with an existing standard, even if we only select a subset of that
> standard. That way we get the best of both worlds -- we get just the
> features we want and we don't have to reinvent the wheel. Further, if at
> some point down the road we decide we want more powerful
> filtering/selection then we can go back to the trough and sip a bit more
> of the XPath juice.
>
> There are two problems with this approach:
> 1) It might not be easy to get the WG to agree on a minimal subset
Like it's easy to get any IETF WG to agree to anything. Seriously, at least with the XPath approach we have something that is already well defined to select from. The current approach is us trying to define and understand something new. Further, we have to "debug" the spec.
> 2) An "arbitrary" subset of Xpath isn't likely to be easily supported
> by off-the-shelf Xpath tools
I suspect it will be easier to take open source and make it conform to the NetConf "XPath" than it will be to create completely new code.
I've said my bit. If others are interested in the XPath approach then speak up now. I also don't want to rehash the XPath discussion any more than I just did in the last two emails.
Regards, /gww