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.