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

Re: Reload

On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:22:53AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:

> However, this is what the WG describes as <exec in the past:
> 
> <exec>
> 
>  Takes 0 - N parameters of an opaque nature, and returns
>  zero or more unspecified elements,  and has zero or more
>  unspecified side effects.
> 
> IMO there is no point in this 'feature'.
> 
> Unless there was more to it than this, the <exec> node
> has no real value.

I am not sure I agree. Such an "exec" feature allows a data model to
formally describe what the in/out argument for an exec are.  For
example, a data model could define that there is an operation called
"ping", that it takes an IP address as input and returns some
statistics. This moves the definition of operations out of the
protocol into the data model (and thus requires that there is a data
model framework to support this).

The other approach is to introduce all new verbs as protocol
extensions which does not require any data modeling agreement. (This
is for those people who believe the IETF is good at protocols but less
so on data models.)

I am not arguing in either direction. I am just questioning the
statement that there is "no point in this 'feature'" and "has no real
value".

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

--
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/>