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

[Larry Menten <lmenten@lucent.com>]

Eliot Lear wrote:

> > It wasn't meant to be hyperbole.  A design that supports 
> > add/delete/replace/merge
> > and explicitly names the target of the operation does not require as 
> > much locking
> > to assure robust management as one that expresses transactions as 
> > overlay/replace/merge
> > and leaves it to the agent to determine what target was meant.
>
> I agree with you to a point.  If you can do granular locking then life 
> is better.  However, that requires two things: (a) a standard and (b) 
> that each network element implement that standard.  You're asking for 
> a very high bar on implementations, particularly low end ones.  On 
> those low end implementations there truly is no need for granular 
> locking. 

I'm not asking for locking.  I'm suggesting that we rework the approach 
so that locking
is less important.

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/>