Re: NetConf should fully exploit BEEP's rich features

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 12:28 PM 9/26/2003, Bobby Krupczak wrote:
>Hi!
>
>>I think you missed an important point that Eliot made in
>>a previous email.  We want to be as transport-independent
>>as possible.  We want to be able to modularize an 
>>implementation so that the protocol message handling code
>>will continue to work, even if the underlying transport
>>protocol changes.  Maintaining a consistent XML syntax
>>across different transports is required to achieve this goal.
>
>I agree with your statement.
>
>However, I'm concerned about too many transport options leading to
>limited interoperability.  Plus, when there are too many options,
>folks have to resort to implementor's agreements which also greatly
>troubles me.

I agree with you.  The WG needs to think very carefully
about the transports we are supporting, and the use cases
associated with each of them.  These need to be clearly
articulated in the documents.

I am also a bit troubled by the tendency to introduce
lots of optional features.  We say "make it a capability"
(and that means make it optional) all too often when
discussing controversial features.  I think we need
some optional features because netconf can apply to
many different platforms.  Not all platforms can
support (or need) the same set of features.  An
example is wildcard expressions via XPath.  A small
device with 2 interfaces doesn't have much to
wildcard, unlike a large router with 10000 interfaces.


>Bobby

Andy


>--
>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/> 


--
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/>