Re: Verbs Again (was RE: draft-shafer-netconf-syslog-00.txt)

[Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net>]

Andy Bierman writes:
>Unless standard data shows up in exactly the same place,
>with the same syntax and same semantics, using the <get> operation,
>then it isn't a standard that meets this requirement.

Does <get-config> pass that test?

>Data model discovery becomes quite a nightmare if a manager
>has to know priori, each different set of special RPCs to
>use for every device it manages, and try them all to discover
>the entire device configuration and state.

Yes, this is a hard problem.  But thinking that all devices will
instantly converge on a new standard data model won't fly.  The
difference between the model and the device can be ignored or painted
over for monitoring (ala SNMP MIBs) but when you move into
configuration, it's the details that matter.

So my proposal is to fly little fish first.  If your application
wants to get notification data, it has to know a priori that it
gets the list of streams via one RPC and gets the notification data
via another RPC.  Come to think of it, even if you had all this
hidden under <get>, your application would still have to know the
magic filter to pass in to get the list of streams and the magic
filter to pass in to get the notification data.  The difference is
whether you put this knowledge in the RPC (name and arguments) or
the filter's XML content (and the schema that defines it).

Thanks,
 Phil

--
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/>