Re: Verbs Again

[Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>]

Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net> wrote:
> Andy Bierman writes:
> >If they want to conform to the standard "notification" capability,
> >then they will do everything that is specified, including
> >implementing the tiny standard data model in the spec.
> 
> For netconf to be widely accepted we need to minimize the price of
> implementation, leveraging existing software features and configuration.

Again, suppose an agent actually did make this data configurable
through NETCONF.  First of all, it would have to do this in a
vendor-specific way.  Second, it would have to make this data
available _both_ as a normal <get-config> part, _and_ as a new RPC,
<get-syslog-streams>.

An agent that only provides read-only access to this data would
provide the data as a new RPC instead of a <get> part.  I don't
understand why the former would be easier to implement than the
latter?



/martin

--
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/>