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

["Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

> -----Original Message-----

> 
> 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
> 

(speaking as a contributor)

This seems to me contrary to the principle of separation between
protocol operations and data models, which - if I read the Charter - is
one of the basic design principles in Netconf. 

'The Netconf protocol should be independent of the data definition
language and data models used to describe configuration and state Data.'


Dan


--
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/>