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

Re: action RPC I-D

Steven Berl (sberl) wrote:

Why wouldn't we define standard actions? Seems like there are several the
would be useful. Off the top of my head

- reboot
- file system operations such as:
    - copy
    - delete
    - rename
    - erase/format
    - mkdir
- ping
- traceroute



I agree.
But we don't need an extra wrapper to define this.
I.e.

<rpc>
  <ping>
    <parm1>...
    <parm2>...
  </ping>
</rpc>

vs.

<rpc>
  <action>
    <actionName>ping</actionName>
    <parameters>
      <parm1>...
      <parm2>...
    </parameters>
  </action>
</rpc>



-steve


Andy




On 10/13/06 1:59 PM, "Andy Bierman" <ietf@andybierman.com> wrote:


Do we really need a standard "action" RPC method container,
without defining any actual standard actions?

thanks,
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/>