Re: minutes for NETCONF WG interim meeting (09/03)

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Andy Bierman" <abierman@cisco.com>
> To: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
> Cc: <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 8:54 AM
> Subject: Re: minutes for NETCONF WG interim meeting (09/03)
...
> I think the key point is the need for parsing the identifier.
> We don't need to parse OIDs.  They are good as global
> identifiers via decentralized naming authorities.
...

That's what they're supposed to be, and how the SMI uses them,
but that's not how SNMP uses them.  Recall what it takes to
extract table indexes from object identifiers.  Subagents
spend much of their time parsing OIDs, and we've heard
complaints from application writers who wish index objects
were accessible so they wouldn't have to parse OIDs as
frequently.

> URIs would also serve that purpose well.  But OIDs
> don't have version numbers.   The group at the interim
> felt it would be better to provide a distinct version number
> rather than create a strict URI format that every vendor
> must use for their own schema and capability definitions.
>
>
> >It should be possible to register a URN namespace for netconf if we
> >are interested in well controlled names for standardized capabilities.
...

A bystander's comment:
This argument about structure vs. anarchy for the substance of this
protocol seems to recur for every element, and the bias (perhaps
due to the charter) seems to be towards anarchy.  I think this will
undercut the value of whatever eventual standardization of those
elements might happen.

Randy



--
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/>