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

[Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net>]

Andy Bierman writes:
>You are okay with standard parameters for syslog delivery
>when they are passed in a special RPC, but if those standard
>parameters are moved to a data model, suddenly you can't
>map your proprietary mechanism to the standard anymore.

Sure.  I think mapping to an abstract model is reasonably
easy (think SNMP MIBs), but mapping from an abstract model
to device configuration is not easy (think SNMP MIBs).

>So it is
>not a burden for a conforming netconf agent or manager
>to use the base operations, since they are never optional.

The point is that <get-config> and <edit-config> for device-specific
configuration is simple.  Doing them for a data model that is not
implemented verbatim on the device is not.  I think you imagine
people doing verbatim implementations of whatever data model that
netconf defines.  I don't.  I see a big network with lots of deployed
boxes and lots of configuration data that isn't doing to move to a
brave new world in my lifetime.  I want to make something that's
useful in my lifetime, so mandating this isn't doing it for me.

>The bar has been raised in this WG.

The goal is to make something that solves today's problems in
reasonably efficient, reasonably cost-effective ways, that
vendors will implement and operators will use.

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/>