[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: XCAP to Proposed Standard

Randy Presuhn wrote:

Hi -


From: "Andy Bierman" <ietf@andybierman.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
Cc: <netconf@ops.ietf.org>; "Ops-Nm (E-mail)" <ops-nm@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: XCAP to Proposed Standard

...

5) In a general sense there is clearly overlap between NETCONF and XCAP.
    I think NETCONF tries to be more content and transport independent,
    and the RPC-based architecture is more suited to standard and vendor
    "specialized RPC" extensions, which provide a more natural
    programming paradigm than a model based on XML document manipulation.

...

However, treating configuration data as document content makes use
of existing configuration management specifications (webdav / deltav)
conceivable.


Sure.
I don't want to stop anybody from managing an NE device this way.
NE device configuration is an area of standardization that nobody
can claim any significant success yet, so "overlap" isn't a valid
argument. IMO, the RPC approach has more potential, but time will
tell either way.



Randy


Andy


--
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/>