RE: IANA considerations update for NETCONF protocol draft

["Rob Enns" <rpe@juniper.net>]

> > I'm not sure it's worth it either. My preference is to drop the IANA
> > allocated enterprise capability registry. Enterprises defining their
> > own capabilities can choose URIs that make sense to them. Much like
> > XML namespaces, common sense would dictate the choice of a URI that
> > won't clash with others. 
> >   
> 
> Common sense is something that works with small numbers, but not with
> large.  Why can't we solve this problem the same way SNMP 
> solved it?  I
> do think we can defer this until we see large numbers of netconf agent
> implementations.

You are referring to the way enterprises register under the  enterprise
OID?

For capabilities we could do the same but I think common sense will
keep "foo networks" using foonetworks.com in their URI when defining
new capabilities.

Once we get around to defining data models, an enterprise registry is
a necessity... so if we can defer capability registry until then, fair
enough.

Rob

--
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/>