Named Profiles for notification configuration

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Hi,

IMO, the entire concept of the 'named-profile' configuration
option in the draft is broken.  From a standards POV, it is
broken because there is no way for 1 vendor to set a profile
and another to use it.  The content is unspecified.

More importantly, this is "just another data model".
We already have an architecture for defining, naming, and
manipulating data with standard RPC methods (e.g., <edit-config>).
IMO, adding a new 'opaque' label-based configuration model on
top of that is a bad idea.

As Wes would say, "Have you fully considered the access control
implications of this design?"  I don't think so.



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/>