RE: Goals for netconf - moving towards the charter description

["Faye Ly" <faye@pedestalnetworks.com>]

Ran,

But this doesn't make much sense?  SNMP already does that and proves to
be un-suitable for IP user traffic configuration.  We need a transaction
based configuration mechanism that take care of the use cases where
inter-object dependency exist.  (Not to mention state inter dependency,
but let's deal with one problem at a time).

-faye

-----Original Message-----
From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:rja@extremenetworks.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 10:52 AM
To: Faye Ly
Cc: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Goals for netconf - moving towards the charter description


On Monday, Mar 24, 2003, at 12:45 America/Montreal, Faye Ly wrote:
> If you examine the examples given, first transaction is a lot more
> complex than the second one.  First one trigger inter objects 
> dependency
> and second one doesn't for most of the cases.  So the question is 
> really
> does the protocol treat the inter-object dependency the same with non
> inter-object dependency transactions?  Does the protocol provide
> stateful transactions or stateless transaction?

The protocol on the table is unaware of any of the objects
being configured, so it is even less aware of any inter-object
relationships that might exist.  The protocol on the table
just moves blobs of configuration data from place to place.

Ran


--
to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>