Hi - > From: Robert Wilton > Sent: Dec 17, 2015 1:12 PM > To: Andy Bierman > Cc: "[email protected]" > Subject: Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01 ... > Your requirement is a bit too strong for my liking. > > To paraphrase your requirement text, it is forcing that all > compliant NETCONF/RESTCONF servers MUST support any clients that do > not want to differentiate between intended config and applied > config.
Do do otherwise sound to me like an interoperability disaster, and would encourage the "siloization" of toolsets. > However, this requires all opstate aware servers: > > - To handle a mix of clients, some of which are opstate aware, and > some that are not. This seems perfectly reasonable. To do otherwise torpedoes the very notion of interoperability. > - To potentially handle a mix of requests, some of which are > opstate aware requests, and some are not. Ditto. > It also prevents: > > - Having a server that is implemented to only support opstate aware > clients. Avoiding the creation of such servers sounds like a *good* thing to me. > - Having a server side configuration knob to control the behaviour > (since it would affect the semantics for all clients). This also sounds like something which it would be desireable to prevent. I think I'm squarely with Andy on this one. Randy _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
