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

[Scott Lawrence <scott-xmlconf@skrb.org>]

"Allen, Keith" <kallen@tri.sbc.com> writes:

> I wrote:
>>> "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 
>> attributes.
>
>
> 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:

I'm not sure that I understood your intent in this note.  Did you mean
to say "identifying the operation type as _an_attribute_ in the
element"?  

Your example seemed to perform selection using an attribute defined as
a part of the netcof schema (the 'select' attribute of the 'operation'
element), but the operation type as an attribute in the data model.
If those two are to be separated, that seems backwards to me.

-- 
Scott Lawrence        
  Actively seeking work 
  http://skrb.org/scott/
  [ <lawrence@world.std.com> is deprecated ]


--
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/>