Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > Joel, > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28:04PM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > I don't recall seeing that form of commit in any protocol that has > > been proposed. I think it would be rather hard to do. > > One of the prior complicating details had been I2RS saying we'd use "netconf > and restconf" when we selected our protocol earlier this year. > > As we've since seen, netconf commit and datastore semantics (protocol > components) significantly complicate our needs. This has been a detail that > I believe is pushing netconf off the table and moving us more firmly into > restconf.
Just to be clear; the semantics you are talking about are not inherent to the *protocol*, they are tied to the *datastore*. This means that NETCONF and RESTCONF will show similar behavior (somewhat dependant on which capabilities NETCONF advertises; as has been pointed out the client has more control over the NETCONF datastores, leading to more predictable behavior). So the reasoning should not be: "NETCONF commit has unwanted semantics and/or performace, therefore we should use RESTCONF". Rather it should be "Writes to the configuration datastore has unwanted semantics and/or performace, therefore we need to carefully define the semantics for the new ephemeral datastore" - and once that is done it is trivial to define the necessary protocol extensions for both NETCONF and RESTCONF. Another way of stating this is that NETCONF commit semantics don't matter if I2RS defines a new ephemeral datastore. (Modulo interactions with the config datastore). /martin _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
