[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Explicit and unique naming of configuration target
Andy Bierman wrote:
This seems to be optimizing for a corner-case. The client should
check if the interface exists if it's that important. I don't
think it's unreasonable for the client to know the state of the
device before modifying the device config. I view the 'add MD5 key'
as a modify, not an add.
I think is unreasonable to require that the client to know exactly
and without error what the instantaneous configuration state of the
device will be at the moment that the transaction is received.
I don't think the xmlconf draft says anything specific about
creating subordinate objects if the higher layer objects do not
exist. This is very data-model and implementation-specific.
I would like a different representation to create an entire tag
hierarchy from the representation used to simply add a leaf subtree
within an existing tag hierarchy.
I would like to be able to build systems that can accept both kinds
of transactions. I would like to be able to express these very different
operations differently so that the target system can report back if
my assumptions about the configuration state of the device
were incorrect.
--
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/>