RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-weijing-netconf-interface-00.txt

["Little, Kevin C (IP)" <kclittle@enterasys.com>]

>>>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:

> Keith> The challenge is defining *objects* with a "data definition
> Keith> language," as opposed to an object definition language.
> 
> It all depends on the precise understanding of the overloaded term
> *objects*...

>>>>> and also (from another email)
> >>>>> Randy Presuhn writes:

> Randy> I don't know what Keith has in mind or whether he's proposing 
> Randy> anything, but an XSD would not be terribly well-suited to 
> Randy> representing the semantic constraints on the objects referred
to 
> Randy> by the arguments of a method associated with an object.

> I have not read the current netconf document (well the one from the
> xmlconf folks) - but the previous one did not have a mechanism to
invoke
> methods as far as I recall.

Some of us on this list are using "object" and "method" with a very
OOPish slant. But I do not think that "draft-enns-xmlconf-spec-xx"
necessarily does. Note the use of the pre-OOP era term "remote PROCEDURE
call" (my emphasis), and the use of the term "object" in the SNMP sense
(my perception).

I'm not saying one viewpoint is better. But Juergen is right; we're not
yet speaking/thinking in the quite the same conceptual space.

       -k  

--
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/>