RE: IANA considerations update for NETCONF protocol draft

["McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>]

Eliot Lear wrote:

> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 1:10 PM
> To: Rob Enns
> Cc: Tom Petch; Randy Presuhn; netconf
> Subject: Re: IANA considerations update for NETCONF protocol draft
> 
> 
> Rob Enns wrote:
> > 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.

XML sloppily addresses this problem (in dozens of W3C, OASIS, and other
specs) by saying just use an enterprise URI (with the durability problem 
that Randy complains about).

But this is not rocket science.  The NetConf spec should say that
Enterprise Capabilities MUST be prefixed by a durable URN (not simply
a URI) and are not going to be IANA registered.  End of problem.

And I suggest that you further specify that Enterprise Capabilities
SHOULD use the UUID URN Namespace (RFC 4122, July 2005).

Cheers,
- Ira


Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com

--
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/>