Hello,I am more disturbed by the fact that we have two filter mechanism - named profile and filter in the draft. These seem really to do the same thing one using a data model while the other trying to conform to a verb type solution.
Please merge the two! You could kill the filter or say that it updates the stored filter/named profile.
Myself I am more on the data model side but can we settle for Andy's compromise:Set up what to do using a data model then start/stop subscription using a very simple verb/operation?
regards Balazs Sharon Chisholm wrote:
hi <Andy> I think you missed a key point in this thread. New RPCs are appropriate when they don't replicate the existing RPCs. Several WG members are not convinced at all that subscription data is anything other than config data. </Andy> No, I don't think I did. I thought people raised some very good points to consider when deciding whether or not to add new verbs. Just whether existing verbs and a chunk of data model *could* be used obviously isn't the only criteria or we wouldn't have a made some of the decisions wemade in the base protocol.Usability by the client and ease of integration into the network itself need to also be considered. Sharon -- 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/>
-- Balazs Lengyel Ericsson Hungary Ltd. TSP System Manager ECN: 831 7320 Fax: +36 1 4377792 Tel: +36-1-437-7320 email: Balazs.Lengyel@ericsson.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/>