Re: action RPC I-D

[Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net>]

Martin Bjorklund writes:
>Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net> wrote:
>> Options from the "ping" command become xml elements under the
>> <ping> element.  Imagine trying to encode options under a
>> string like "/interfaces[ifIndex="2"]/reset".
>
>This string is just to identify the action.  In Balazs' draft, this
>identifier is split into two parts, the <calling-point> and the
><name>.  Parameters are passed with in <parameters> element in his
>draft.  They would not be "encoded" into the action name.

Okay, an action has a name, a target, and a set of parameters.
Your suggestion puts the name and the target in a string which
is uncontrolled and undocumented (as far as schema).  Putting
the parameters in an element won't help you constrain them,
since the constraints need to be tied to the particular action.

So the question is: what does a generic <action> action buy you?
And are you trade that against what a schema-friendly RPC buys you?

Thanks,
 Phil

--
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/>