[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Explicit and unique naming of configuration target
We all know that we want a protocol separating from data model. However,
the Enns draft does imply a specific operation model (backup, running,
validating, global-only manipulation of XML tree, etc). Not all the device
or system follows the same model. We are working on a draft that the
protocol should be able to accommodate the different data model: protocol
only specifies the encapsulation envelop and target, the data model will
decide the actual operation. Some examples are:
Example of perform configuration with XML data schema and XPath:
<perform-request id="09233523-567b" atomic="true"
xmlns="http://www.ietf.org/mops"
xmlns:example="http://example.com/schema">
<operation id="1"
target="/root/ospf[@id='1']/area[@id='2']
/interface[@id='Ethernet1/5']">
<example:interface operation="replace">
<hello-interval>10</hello-interval>
</example:interface>
</operation>
<operation id="2"
target="/root/ospf[@id='1']/area[@id='2']
/interface[@id='Ethernet2/2']">
<example:interface operation="read">
<address/>
<adminStatus/>
</example:interface>
</operation>
</perform-request>
Example of perform configuration with XML data schema and no XPath:
<perform-request id="09233523-567b" atomic="true"
xmlns="http://www.ietf.org/mops"
xmlns:example="http://example.com/schema">
<operation id="1" target="/root">
<example:ospf id="1">
<example:area id="2">
<example:interface id="Ethernet1/5" operation="replace">
<hello-interval>10</hello-interval>
</example:interface>
</example:area>
</example:ospf>
</operation>
<operation id="2" target="/root">
<example:ospf id="1">
<example:area id="2">
<example:interface id="Ethernet2/2" operation="read">
<address/>
<adminStatus/>
</example:interface>
</example:area>
</example:ospf>
</operation>
</perform-request>
Example of perform configuration with no XML data schema (i.e. plain text):
<perform-request id="09233523-567b" atomic="false"
xmlns="http://www.ietf.org/mops">
<operation id="1" select="/root">
enable
config terminal
ip vrf v7:yellow-s
rd 64000:10004
route-target export 64000:5003
route-target import 64000:5002
maximum routes 500 80
</operation>
</perform-request>
--
Weijing Chen
SBC Technology Resources
9505 Arboretum Blvd.
Austin, TX 78759
512 372 5710
wchen@tri.sbc.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 9:23 AM
> To: Glenn Waters
> Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder; abierman@cisco.com; lmenten@lucent.com;
> netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Explicit and unique naming of configuration target
>
> Glenn Waters wrote:
> >
> > Andy, with respect to your statement that "the client should know the
> state
> > of the device" I think that the complexity is much greater than you may
> > think.
>
> We are not at this time proposing a meta-data model or anything of the
> sort. This means that the network management application MUST (note the
> capitals) have an understanding of the different device operating models.
>
> Otherwise, it's like teaching a monkey to type. Sure it will type, but
> will anyone understand it?
>
> > When you get into systems that programmatically handle the
> > configuration of the device it can be very challenging to know the state
> of
> > the device; especially when other systems and other humans may be
> modifying
> > the device at the same time.
>
> True. See above.
>
> Eliot
>
>
> --
> 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/>
--
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/>