RE: netconf WG charter proposal

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 10:31 AM 4/7/2003 -0400, Bryan Strickland wrote:


>-----Original Message----- 
>From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [<mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de] 
>Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 9:53 AM 
>To: abierman@cisco.com 
>Cc: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org 
>Subject: Re: netconf WG charter proposal 
>
>I agree with Juergen. The proposed request/response method is not 
>like RPC mechanisms I have seen/used in the past. It is more like a 
>remote CLI, or programmatic CLI than it is an RPC mechanism. There 
>is no provision for method signatures, no data types (other than String) 
>and there is no notion of the remote service or object that the RPC 
>is being called on. Personally, I think that a standard, existing 
>RPC mechanism (XML/RPC, SOAP)  would likely be beneficial. 

please look at rev B of the charter proposal. The term RPC
has been removed completely.


>Bryan 

Andy



>>>>>> Andy Bierman writes: 
>
>>> Furthermore, I do not understand why the charter requires RPCs. And 
>>> in fact, JunoScript and xmlconf both seem to be just request/response 
>>> protocols very similar to SNMP by the way. I fail to see real support 
>>> for RPC abstractions in the classic sense. I suggest just to drop the 
>>> text about RPCs - I do not find it convincing or helpful. 
>
>Andy> What is the difference between an RPC and a request that carries 
>Andy> zero or more input parameters, followed by a response with zero or 
>Andy> more output parameters? It is understood that some work may be 
>Andy> done on the device to produce the response, and that the response 
>Andy> may be delayed (hence the rpc-progress reports).  This looks to me 
>Andy> like an RPC model, not a generic request/response model. 
>
>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: 
>
>>>In my world model, request-response protocols are a mechanism which you can use to build RPC protocols. But there >>are request-response protocols that are not RPC protocols. In fact, I believe that RPCs in general were invented >>with the notion of procedure or function calls where one can call a remote function/procedure almost like a local >>function/procedure call. This basically means that RPCs have a signature which defines the input and output
>
>>>parameters. Your RPCs just send XML blobs or even non-XML blobs around, which does not really match my 
>>>understanding of RPCs. 


--
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/>