[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Separation of configuration and control - good or bad?
>> "I think a problem with this would be that the write-option tag would
>> have to be an attribute of elements that are not defined by this group
>> and will not be defined by this group. The write-option tag would be
>> mixing the protocol used to transfer configuration data in with the
>> configuration data itself."
Then Larry Menten wrote:
> So what is the consensus on this issue? I strongly favor using these
Actually, I think I'm beginning to like the idea of identifying the
operation type as a tag in the element. When discussing this with my
colleague Weijing Chen, he pointed out that it would allow the developers of
the information model to identify their own operation types, and which
operations could be applied to which elements in their XML schema. I think
this would lend a lot of flexibility to the protocol, and simplify the work
of this group.
Just to lend some concreteness to this, we think this would lead to instance
documents that could look something like this:
<edit-config id="1" atomic="true">
<interface opType="merge" xmlns="http://example.com/schema/interface">
<interface opType="read" xmlns="http://example.com/schema/interface">
The above would communicate an atomic set of two operations, the first sets
the address of an interface, and the second reads the address and
administrative status of another interface.
Everything between the <operation> tags would be dependent on the
information model of the device.
SBC Technology Resources
9505 Arboretum Blvd.
Austin, TX 78759
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.