[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: action RPC I-D
- To: "Andy Bierman" <ietf@andybierman.com>
- Subject: Re: action RPC I-D
- From: "Steven Berl \(sberl\)" <sberl@cisco.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:22:20 -0700
- Authentication-results: sj-dkim-7.cisco.com; header.From=sberl@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( 26 extraneous bytes; sig from cisco.com verified; );
- Cc: "Netconf \(E-mail\)" <netconf@ops.ietf.org>, "Balazs Lengyel" <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=4457; t=1160781747; x=1161645747; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim7002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=sberl@cisco.com; z=From:=22Steven=20Berl=20\(sberl\)=22=20<sberl@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20action=20RPC=20I-D; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DWNkwV5VCyY0+kUV5qtqLfNJKyJA=3D; b=ncFunCluGOk8MmM8iWfTiccKLxrtJu8ZM0L4CDoIrQDDW10pCJbJ7kUMan0/kvuUcwGHsVYc RJ5pH2gb9smMTx2Dp57xmyit5uL/9mJsL4bjLU2UYuFD/HUMGRBD1D8s;
- In-reply-to: <45300CC0.60203@andybierman.com>
I agree. I misunderstood which part you were objecting to.
-steve
On 10/13/06 3:01 PM, "Andy Bierman" <ietf@andybierman.com> wrote:
> 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
>>>
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature