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

Re: Thoughts on NetConf Requirements

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

But I have questioned the need for BEEP as the required transport in
the past because I am not totally convinced that having multiple
channels over a single transport connection is indeed a requirement
for netconf. And operators told us several times that they want to be
able to type (or cut n paste) messages into a (secure) transport
connection to handle some special situations.
There's nothing stopping you from using the currently CLI to do just that. However, here is what BEEP buys you:

1. Integrated event management related to configuration. How? You have a separate channel.

2. The security profiles are well specified.

3. Proper framing of XML channels within a channel. You don't have to have parsed the entire page in line to know that there's more coming. In fact you don't have to parse anything- it's byte counts.

4. It was pretty much designed with XML in mind as well as HTTP's shortcomings. In essence, it was meant to address things that HTTPng started to tackle.

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/>