Agree with Andy and Randy. > On Dec 17, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Randy Presuhn <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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
Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
