RE: Verbs or data model [was: Session reuse]

["Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortel.com>]

hi

We had another one of these lists goings at one point, but I'll add on
to this one since I'm too lazy to dig it up ...
<Balazs>

Pro Verbs:
- some people feel verbs are more understandable
- else ???
</Balazs>

First, we are talking verbs for this particular case since I don't
support the general idea that we want 345309840 different verbs. We have
historically made a decision to create new netconf verbs when it made
sense to do so and that is what I am suggesting we do now

- Acts as a hindrance for people wishing to over-engineer the
subscription data model
- Acts as a hindrance for people wishing to over-engineer the
subscription process
- Notification subscription a common verb in other solutions
- Allows for the Netconf client to be the authoritative source of the
subscription
- Simplifies housekeeping

<Balazs>
Pro Data Model:
- some people feel if the whole of netconf is based on the idea of
reading and writing 
configuration data we should use our own mechanisms
- it lets short "mixed session type" notification sessions and call-home
type sessions 
work together more easily. They can use a common data model and a single
mechanism instead 
of in-line filter definition for subscriptions and stored filters for
call-home.
- it is inefficient to require the notification generation and filtering
parameters to be 
passed to the agent every time
- filters might be reused between sessions and different notification
receivers

</Balazs>

Actually both regular notifications and the call home ones can share the
same named profile if they choose to use it. I'm not sure I would expect
these in the same box, but perhaps the same network.

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/>