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

[Larry Menten <lmenten@lucent.com>]

Randy Presuhn wrote:

> Hi -
>
>  
> > From: "Larry Menten" <lmenten@lucent.com>
> > To: "netconf" <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
> > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 2:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: Separation of configuration and control - good or bad?
> >    
> ...
>  
> > > Just to be clear: distinguishing the "definitive" configuration from that of
> > > the device (or network) does *not* require hosting it on an element
> > > manager.  It could be somewhere else entirely, and all the element
> > > manager would do would be to tell the device to update itself, perhaps
> > > by sending it the configuration's URL.
> > >
> > > Randy
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > The problem is the same.  It does not accommodate SOHO management.
> >    
> ...
>
> How so?  This wouldn't prevent the configuration "document" from living
> on the managed element.  The important point (already recognized in the
> current i-d) is that there is a distinction between manipulating the configuration
> document and having it actually take effect.
>
> Randy
>  
A transaction representation that requires a lock-get-load-unlock model
for robust/safe operation is not a good match to SOHO needs.  The 
transaction
spec should certainly support LDAP or other master config approaches.  But
it should not require a lock-get-load-unlock model to assure a safe
transaction.  That was my point.

I am not sure that we disagree.

Larry

> --
> 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/>
>  
--
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/>