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

[Larry Menten <lmenten@lucent.com>]

Phil Shafer wrote:

> Larry Menten writes:
>  
> > The Enns model is one in which
> > configuration is expressed as the transformation of a document.  This is why
> > you must lock the document before you operate on it.
> >    
> Regardless of the configuration change you are making, locking the
> device seems like a requirement. This seems independent of your
> view of configuration-as-tree .vs. configuration-as-hierarchy
> .vs. configuration-as-set-of-strings. If you can't lock it,
> you can't prevent other sources of configuration (applications or
> users) from turning your change from benign to dangerous.
>  
I disagree.  It should be safe to, for example, delete an OSPF interface 
instance
without having to lock the config to do so.  The requirement for locking 
is an
artifact of the Enns representation and not inherent to the delete 
operation.

The Enns spec turns a benign change into a dangerous one.  Just my point.

> Thanks,
> Phil
>
> --
> 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/>
>  
Thanks,
Larry

--
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/>