On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 10:43:50AM +0000, Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS/ESY1) wrote:
> Leading (for me) to a principle dilemma from (management) protocol > engineering perspective due to > a) Manager-to-Agent = 1:N > b) Client-to-Server = N:1 > c) and the mapping approach in NETCONF/NETMOD of Manager-to-Client and > Agent-to-Server in my understanding. The problem is that you leave the plural 's' out. ;-) Client-to-Server is 1:1 (= Manager-to-Agent) Client-to-Servers is 1:N (= Manager-to-Agents) Clients-to-Server is N:1 (= Managers-to-Agent) > I'm being aware that a distributed management solution needs to resolve the > various role assignments in a layered management communication architecture > at the various levels, e.g., > for Management Application MA-over-RESTCONF-over-HTTP-over-TCP-over- ... as > 1) Application level (MA): Manager to Agent(s) > 2) Application layer management protocol = RESTCONF: Manager to Agent(s) > 3) Session layer = HTTP: Client(s) to Server > 4) Transport layer = TCP: Client(s) to Server > > I fail to see, or do miss the background/justification why the notion of > client/server is used in RFCs about YANG, NMDA, NETCONF? Instead of > manager/agent. > It all boils down how you define the terms Manager and Agent. With NETCONF/RESTCONF and YANG, the initial focus was on the interaction between the server maintaining configuration datastores and the client manipulating configuration datastores (leaving out notifications for now, they actually came later). /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
