Hi Joel,
Netconf is content agnostic. On page 8, the draft says:
4. The content layer is outside the scope of this document. Given
the current proprietary nature of the configuration data being
manipulated, the specification of this content depends on the
NETCONF implementation. It is expected that a separate effort to
specify a standard data definition language and standard content
will be undertaken.
and on page 17:
5.2. Data Modeling
Data modeling and content issues are outside the scope of the NETCONF
protocol. An assumption is made that the device's data model is
well-known to the application and that both parties are aware of
issues such as the layout, containment, keying, lookup, replacement,
and management of the data, as well as any other constraints imposed
by the data model.
You are right that we never connect this back to the contents
of the <config> element, and we should. How about adding the
following to section 5.2:
NETCONF carries configuration data inside the <config> element
that is specific to device's data model. The protocol treats the
contents of that element as opaque data. The device uses
capabilities to announce the set of data models which the
device implements. The capability definition details the
operation and constraints imposed by data model.
Devices and managers may support multiple data models,
including both standard and proprietary data models.
The discussion of the <config> element in section 7.2 should also be
expanded. How about the following?
config:
A hierarchy of configuration data as defined by one of the
device's data models. The contents MUST be placed in an
appropriate namespace, to allow the device to detect the
appropriate data model, and the contents MUST follow the
constraints of that data model, as defined by its capability
definition. Capabilities are discussed in section XXX.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 8:16 AM
> To: Mary Barnes; [email protected]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Rob Enns; Simon Leinen; Andy Bierman
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Assignment: draft-ietf-netconf-prot-11.txt
>
> This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
>
> While they have fixed several of my concerns, I still can not find
> any description of the <config> element. Given that this document
> makes use of the fact that it may contain a URL, and that it makes
> other structural assumptions, it seems that <config> structure can
> not be considered to be only part of the data model.
> I can not find any comments from the authors in my records. It is
> possible that they provided a good reason for not addressing this,
> and I have lost it.
> It is also possible that there is a change I missed in the document
> which addresses this.
>
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
>
> -------
> OPS Feb 23
> Two-Document ballot:
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=pr
> int_ballot&ballot_id=1768&filename=draft-ietf-netconf-prot>[Open
> Web Ballot] - 7 of 16
> NETCONF Configuration Protocol (Proposed Standard) - 7 of 16
>
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netconf-prot-1
> 1.txt>draft-ietf-netconf-prot-11.txt
>
>
> Token: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Bert Wijnen
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern (reviewed -10 and -05 respectively for LC)
>
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
