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

Re: Explicit and unique naming of configuration target



Margaret Wasserman wrote:

Hi Larry,

At 03:23 PM 5/22/2003 -0400, Larry Menten wrote:

Consequently, a request to add, for example, an MD5 key to what
you intend to be an existing interface instance within an OSPF area might
end up causing the creation of an OSPF instance, the creation of
an OSPF area, and the creation of an OSPF interface instance, and
the creation of the desired MD5 key. There is no way to express that
you only wish to create an MD5 key and you will not know
from the response that instead of a simple operation you have executed
a complex one. I believe that characteristics like these are undesireable.

In your example above, I don't understand how it could
be valid to add an MD5 key to an OSPF instance that doesn't
exist...
To my mind, you should be able to express the desire to add an MD5 key
to an existing interface instance and have the request fail if the instance does not
exist.

That is not what the draft proposes. The draft proposes that the device will
attempt to create anything that is named in the tag hierarchy that does not already
exist. The expression to create the OSPF instance, the OSPF area, the OSPF
interface, and the OSPF MD5 key is exactly the same as the expression to
merely add an MD5 key. Please feel free to give me a call. Might be more efficient
and give me a better idea of your thoughts on the matter.

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/>