[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: minutes for NETCONF WG interim meeting (09/03)
>>>>> Andy Bierman writes:
Andy> I think the key point is the need for parsing the identifier.
Andy> We don't need to parse OIDs. They are good as global
Andy> identifiers via decentralized naming authorities. URIs would
Andy> also serve that purpose well. But OIDs don't have version
Andy> numbers. The group at the interim felt it would be better to
Andy> provide a distinct version number rather than create a strict
Andy> URI format that every vendor must use for their own schema and
Andy> capability definitions.
Sorry, but we are talking about capabilities here. My implementation
either understand a capability or not. So if a certain capability
needs a revision so that the semantics change, you assign a new
identifier. My implementation either understands this new identifier
or not. In other words, what benefit do I get from being able to
extract the version number in the first place? And if an agent
supports multiple versions of the same capability, then it should
announce multiple identifiers. Why do we have to make this more
complex?
/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/>