hi
Note that named profiles are not filters in the latest draft. While in
earlier drafts they were holders for proprietary filtering methods, now
they are only a mechanism to save a favourite set of filters. So,
really, there is only one mechanisms.
Sharon
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Balazs Lengyel
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:30 AM
To: Netconf (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Verbiage
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 we made 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/>