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

["Chen, Weijing" <wchen@tri.sbc.com>]

> From: Scott Lawrence [mailto:scott-xmlconf@skrb.org]
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
[Chen, Weijing] "select" will identify the operation target.  "operation
type" will be an attribute associated with data model, which give maximum
flexibility to future schema work and designer.  Therefore the operation
("create/delete/merge/replace/read/etc") can be validated against with data
model schema ("strong type"), since some of "element" will be restricted to
some operations only (such as non deletable, non mergeable, etc).  It also
allows "text" (not XML-based) blob to be directly encapsulated inside of
operation without change and schema validation ("weak type", bad though).
Examples are:

With schema validation (whether "merge" is allowed by schema for the
targeted interface):
<edit-config id="1" atomic="true">
  <operation id="1"
   select="/root/configuration/protocol/ospf/area[@id='2']/
   interface[@id='ge-1/5']">
    <interface opType="merge" xmlns="http://example.com/schema/interface";>
      <address type="IPv4">
	  10.10.10.1
	</address>
    </interface>
  </operation>
...

With "text" blob:
<edit-config id="1" atomic="true">
  <operation id="1"
   select="/root/run-config/">
	config
	ospf
	interface ge-1/5
	delete
  </operation>
...



--
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/>