RE: netconf WG charter proposal - data model or not?

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

Andy,

This is to respond to your second part of the comment:

>>
>>Your statement 'overly describing something we don't do' is a very
sharp
>>observation!  We are suffering from lacking a very clear vision on how
>>this configuration protocol is going to turn out without using any
data
>>model.  I think of the data model as the use case that needs to be
feed
>>into the design as the requirement. 

>I disagree that we don't know what an XML data model might
>look like.  Look at the XMLCONF examples. Look at the Junoscript
>draft.  Several vendors are already creating XML data models
>on their own.

When you said the XMLCONF examples, do you mean the examples given in
"CLI-based Mediation Mechanism Using XML"?  

As for 'several vendors are already ...'.  This is what I am afraid of,
several vendors are already creating XML data models.  If they are doing
so, do they inter-operate?  Aren't we going back to the original problem
that 'each vendor has its own configuration model and thus requires
operator to manage each individually'?  If TOS is required in one
vendor's configuration and 'optional' in another (or worse, not
supported), how does XMLCONF address that?  Access list configuration is
another good example, Cisco and Juniper do this quite differently.  How
does XMLCONF help the operator to configure this in the same fashion?

-faye

--
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/>