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

Re: action RPC I-D

Hello,
I completely agree that there might be standard actions later, but my basic premise is that there will always be vendor specific actions as well. Just as I don't believe we can ever FULLY standardize the data model, the same way I believe we will never be able to standardize all actions.
I believe handling non-standard actions is easier if we define them in the data model and not as separate operations. It particularly helps intermediate SW to handle the actions. I agree with Andy that the "end-user" of the action must always understand all new actions whatever the form used to transfer them. However there may be, there will be a number of intermediate SW blocks on the path.
I gave a few examples in the draft of intermediate SW, but just as one more possibility to consider, think about the recent sub-agent draft and it's proposed architecture. The master-agent would also delegate the handling of some RPCs to other SW entities. With the generic action it just has to check the calling-point and can forward the action. 

Also we have already know of working examples of this construct:
- LDAP extended operations
- Ericsson has a Netconf implementation that misuses the <get> operation to achieve just the same result 
- Ericsson has a number of other implementations based on other protocols
For all these reasons I would ask the workgroup and it's chairmen to consider adopting the topic. 

Balazs

Andy Bierman 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





--
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
TSP System Manager
ECN: 831 7320                        Fax: +36 1 4377792
Tel: +36-1-437-7320     email: Balazs.Lengyel@ericsson.com

--
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/>