RE: RFC3535 question/clarification

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

Randy Presuhn wrote:

> [snip]
> I'm agree with Juergen and Ran, and would like to remind folks of an
> extremely useful concept from an ancient protocol and its SMI:
attribute
> groups.
> The idea is that one can associate a label with a particular
> semantic ("statistics" or "configuration"), and that, in conjunction
with
> a class
> definition, (as well as in the definition of the group itself) one can
say
> that
> specific attributes of instances of a class are members of a
particular
> group.
> 
> This concept is helpful at a protocol level: instead of building the
> groupings into the protocol, one simply needs a way to say
> "get <group-name>" , with the result containing the appropriate
> attribute/value tuples (or however the bits and pieces are
structured).
> It also has the very nice property of accomodating those pieces of
> information
> that arguably belong in more than one group, e.g., bits that are used
for
> both configuration and active control.
> 
> Randy

I would think that this is where the distinction between "config not
explicitly set and thus defaulted" vs. "config explicitly set" that I
brought up at the interim WG would surface -- one of the attributes
should be "was explicitly set".

     -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/>