Re: Separation of configuration and control - good or bad?

[Larry Menten <lmenten@lucent.com>]

Scott,

The example below has the attribute delete="delete" embedded
in the config tree.  Without this, you cannot explicitly express a
delete operation.  I assume that you missed this and didn't mean
to include it.

I am partial to the XPath subset approach, too.  It solves a lot of
problems.

Larry

Scott Lawrence wrote:

> Larry Menten <lmenten@lucent.com> writes:
>
>  
> > I'd like to see this in a future draft in place of the root-level
> > merge/replace/overlay operations currently specified in the
> > draft.[...]
> >    
>  
> > So what is the consensus on this issue?  I strongly favor using
> > these attributes.
> >    
> I'd prefer not to define attributes in the protocol which are then
> applied to elements in the data model.  I'm concerned about being able
> to do good design consistency checking on the complete solution that
> way, since we are not (as part of netconf) defining the data model,
> and possibly (probably) not the naming.
>
> I'd prefer protocol operations expressed at the element level which
> apply to data carried as content within them.  To rework the example
> you posted:
>
>  <operation-set d:xmlns="http://xml.juniper.net/junos/5.4I0/junos";>
>   <insert>
>      <d:protocols>
>        <d:ospf>
>          <d:exports>
>            <d:export order="before" name="bar">foo</d:export>
>          </d:exports>
>          <d:areas>
>            <d:area active="inactive">
>              <d:name>0.0.0.1</d:name>
>            </d:area>
>          </d:areas>
>        </d:ospf>
>      </d:protocols>
>    </insert>
>    <replace>
>      <d:protocols>
>        <d:ospf>
>          <d:areas>
>            <d:area>
>              <d:name>0.0.0.0</d:name>
>              <d:interfaces>
>                <d:interface>
>                  <d:name>135.104.52.3</d:name>
>                  <d:hello-interval>10</d:hello-interval>
>                </d:interface>
>            </d:area>
>          </d:areas>
>        </d:ospf>
>      </d:protocols>
>    <delete>
>      <d:protocols>
>        <d:ospf>
>          <d:areas>
>            <d:area>
>              <d:name>0.0.0.0</d:name>
>              <d:interfaces>
>                <d:interface delete="delete">
>                  <d:name>135.104.52.2</d:name>
>                </d:interface>
>              </d:interfaces>
>            </d:area>
>          </d:areas>
>        </d:ospf>
>      </d:protocols>
>    <delete>
>  </operation-set>
>
> That having been said, I'm intrigued by the idea of specifying data
> using Xpath expressions, which might well dramatically reduce the
> verbosity of the above.
>
>  
--
Larry Menten               Lucent Technologies/Bell Laboratories
Phone: 908 582-4467        600 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, NJ  07974 USA 


--
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/>