[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Explicit and unique naming of configuration target




Phil Shafer wrote:

Larry Menten writes:

A transaction that is intended to create an ospf instance, an ospf area instance
within that ospf instance, an ospf interface instance within that area, and an
MD5 key instance within that interface is the same as one that would be formulated
just to create the MD5 key instance. The behavior is determined by the current
state of the configuration.

A transaction that adds a md5 key to a given interface within a given
ospf area carries an implicit knowledge of that configuration. Turning
this into an error means forcing an explicit creation of every element
of an incoming configuration, which will be a pain.


Actually, it doesn't. If you wish to create the ospf instance, ospf area,
ospf interface, and md5 key in a single transaction, you simply specify
that the target to be added to is the parent of the ospf instance and
provide the desired configuration as the value of the <config> element:

<target>
<protocols/>
</target>
<config>
<ospf name="1">
<area name="0">
<interface name="135.104.57.3">
<md5 name="3">
...
</md5>
</interface>
</area>
</ospf>
</config>

If instead, you wish to request just the addition of the key to an existing
interface instance:

<target>
<protocols>
<ospf name="1">
<area name="0">
<interface name="135.104.57.3"/>
</area>
</ospf>
</protocols>
</target>
<config>
<md5 name="3">
...
</md5>
</config>

The advantage is that you have a safety net in case you made a mistake
or were not aware of the results of concurrent config changes.

Notice that no XPath was required. ; )

Does this address your concern?

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/>