Re: Separation of protocol and information model

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

>>>>> Allen, Keith writes:

[...]

Keith> The two messages really convey the same request.  There are,
Keith> however, some important differences.  The most obvious is that
Keith> in the first example the <running> and <users> elements are
Keith> separate, but in the second the <users> element is contained in
Keith> the <running> element.  Also, in the first example <running> is
Keith> part of the message's standard name space, and in the second it
Keith> is part of the device's name space.  That is, in the first it
Keith> is part of the NETCONF standard message definition and in the
Keith> second it is part of the XML "MIB" defined by the device
Keith> supplier (in this case, example.com).

If I understand you right, then you are saying rather than having
multiple named configurations (and some names might have special
semantics attached to them, such as "running" or "startup", it would
be better to have just one config and to structure the config space
into "running", "startup" or whatever people like.

Personally, I do not see the big difference for named configurations.
What I consider more important is how we distinguished between named
configurations ("config-that-used-to-work-until-yesterday") and
configurations that carry special semantics with them "running",
"startup". There should be rules that allow to distinguish an
arbitrary named configuration from something that has special
properties. And I think the question is whether vendors are allowed 
to create their own named configurations with special semantics
associated to them.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany



--
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/>