[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Explicit and unique naming of configuration target
>>>>> Andy Bierman writes:
Andy> Why would the client want an MD5 key added to an interface, but
Andy> not want the interface to be created, if necessary? This seems
Andy> to be optimizing for a corner-case. The client should check if
Andy> the interface exists if it's that important. I don't think it's
Andy> unreasonable for the client to know the state of the device
Andy> before modifying the device config. I view the 'add MD5 key' as
Andy> a modify, not an add.
If I understand the discussion, then Larry basically wants to be able
to make a clear distinction whether an <add-config> requires some base
instance to exist already (and to fail if it does not) or whether the
requests also asks the device to create a base instance with default
settings if it does not exist. I tend to agree that such a distinction
is important since the effects on the device are quite different.
I also heard Larry saying that he prefers to explicitely select the
instance(s) an operation is supposed to work on by passing e.g. an
xpath expression which selects the relevant object instances.
Larry, did I understand you correctly?
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.iu-bremen.de/>
--
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/>