[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: comments on draft-ietf-netconf-notification-01.txt

On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 09:44:25AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:

> It's less work to define data models for use with the netconf
> protocol than it is to redefine the netconf protocol functionality.

I do not believe this to be true. Implementation wise, I actually do
not see much of a difference. My SNMP experience tells me that adding
new PDUs is actually not a big deal - implementing the semantics is
where you have to spend time. And having to check whether the data
elements you received make since is about the same work as checking
whether a PDU that you received makes sense.

<soap>
  Once upon a time, people believed that the addition of create/delete
  operations to SNMP would add a huge amount of complexity and so we
  got RowStatus which I assume every implementor who has gone through
  the 8K description clause has falled into deep love with.
</soap>

While I do not have a strong opinion, I do have a preference for a
_simple_ subscription mechanism as part of the protocol since I
believe having special verbs will make it more likely that management
apps get to actually use the feature. The argument is clearly on the
irrational side of things how I believe many human programmers work -
they usually tend prefer verbs over data structures and even purely
declarative approaches.

/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/>