Re: Separation of protocol and information model

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

>>>>> Allen, Keith writes:

Keith> One of our concerns was that the specification of those named
Keith> configurations, including <running> or <startup> or whatever,
Keith> should be up to the vendor and not imposed by the protocol.
Keith> Granted, every device does have a <running> configuration and
Keith> technically the protocol does not require a device to support
Keith> the other named configurations.  They can opt out by reporting
Keith> in their capabilities schema that they don't support them.
Keith> Still, the startup, running, and candidate named configurations
Keith> are built into the protocol.  Many devices may not support
Keith> them, so we don't feel they should be built in like that.

- What is wrong to include startup and candidate configurations if
  there is evidence that there are real devices that do support them
  (and some evidence from the operators we could talk to that they use
  them)?

- What is wrong with not requiring support for them on boxes that can
  not support them?

- What is wrong with allowing vendors of have other proprietary
  special configurations?

If you problem boils down to the fact that your favourite special
named configuration store is not in the list, please write a proposal
to describe what should be added and why.

/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/>