Re: Separation of protocol and information model

[Bobby Krupczak <rdk@krupczak.org>]

Hi!

>>We felt the same way.  Early on there was talk of forming a WG to tackle the
>>development of some standard schema but that seems to have died down.  Our
>>preference was to design a very simple protocol and develop some of the more
>>complicated features (killing sessions, locking, copying and validating
>>configurations, etc.) in a standard MIB along with a standard equipment
>>model, interface models, and so on.  It seems, though, that we are on a
>>course to build some of the complicated features into the protocol and stop
>>there.
>
>IMO it would be a mistake to push protocol operations into
>the data model.  We did this in SNMP (e.g. RowStatus and 
>StorageType) and it didn't work out too well.

Absolutely!  Doing row creations as side-effects of Sets has to go
into my own personal hall-of-shame.  Oooh, we really dont want to
start that debate again (on row creations).

Bobby

--
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/>