[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Separation of configuration and control - good or bad?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Separation of configuration and control - good or bad?
- From: Eliot Lear <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 09:59:29 -0700
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507
Not so. The draft as currently expressed is neutral on the entire
subject, and as there are implementations that do not lock anything,
there is as of yet no agreement on how to express locking, due in part
to a lack of standard schema, we would be left with one big mondo lock.
As the draft is currently expressed, locking is required to avoid
deleting someone else's "add interface" operation while you do a
"delete interface" operation on the same ospf area.
That's true in as far as you say, but since there is no standard schema
in the draft -- BY DESIGN -- your comment is a non-sequitor.
You cannot tell from reading an transaction expressed per your draft
whether the purpose of the operation is to create an entire area
configuration, complete with fully configured interface instances,
or simply to delete a single interface instance. Very odd.
The whole point of the draft was to be schema-neutral. The reason is
that no standard schema will come into creation in a short period of
time, but means to move existing configurations are needed today. There
is nothing to stop a standard schema from using this mechanism, there is
nothing hinging on it either.
ps: I have not been receiving *any* netconf mail for over a month now.
The problem is still not fixed, so I am playing catch-up on the mailing
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.