RE: Explicit and unique naming of configuration target

["Chen, Weijing" <wchen@tri.sbc.com>]

Andy wrote:

> >The operation must associate with the most immediate element of intended
> >operation to avoid the ambigious.  Otherwise even with complex rules
> >regarding operation (e.g. "get" apply to last element, or last 3
elements,
> >or last 7 elements plus one of left sibling if blabla, etc.), one still
> have
> >cases fall outside the rules.
> 
> what's to prevent multiple, possibly conflicting operations
> on various elements at various levels of the sub-tree?
I don't think that XML schema has such strong semantics capability.  It is
the problem associated with interaction semantics and I don't know any
current technology has solution for this.


> I wouldn't mind operations-as-attributes if there is a way
> to constrain it and keep device implementation complexity
> low.   When I see emails containing suggestions that the
> client should be able to mix read operations with write
> operations (for arbitrary parameters), or proposals using
> nested XPath expressions, I don't get a sense that
> constraining complexity is a universally shared goal.
The operations-as-attributes is tied to the data model of device.  The
device supplier can decide how simple or how complex they are.  The mixed
operation is primary for tranaction-based request.  One can always use
single operation within a request if no multi-operation transaction needed.
XPath is an option.  The example showed both XPath and no XPath type
request, however XPath is more striaght than hierarchy embedded XML element
listing. 


--

Weijing Chen

SBC Laboratories, Inc.

9505 Arboretum Blvd.

Austin, TX 78759

512 372 5710

wchen@tri.sbc.com



--
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/>