All,
I have taken a quick comparison of our draft vs. current WG I-D on the
operation per operation base. More details are in the attached powerpoint.
In summary, here is what I concluded:
This draft vs. WG I-D:
General vs. specific
No assumption about the device except it must be IP-capable.
Vs. Route-like device
Explicit vs. implicit
Option is explicitly stated by XML schema.
Operating.XSD
Vs. option is implicitly inferred from URL.
<capabilities>
<capability>http://ietf.org/xmlconf/1.0/base</capability>
<capability>http://ietf.org/xmlconf/1.0/base#lock</capability>
<capability>http:/example.net/router/2.3/core#cool-feature</capability>
</capabilities>
Formal vs. informal
Protocol message can be validated by XML schema.
Vs. whether a device supports an option cannot be checked by XML schema. It
must be checked by upper layer application through capabilities URL
inferring.
--
Weijing Chen
Attachment:
draft-weijing-netconf-interface-01.ppt
Description: MS-Powerpoint presentation