Re: [Netconf] nmda-restconf operations (was: netconf-binary-encoding comments)

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> writes:

>>> This isn't what I meant.  To be more specific, I'm wondering if the nmda-restconf
>>> draft would benefit from having a sentence like:
>>> 
>>>    A RESTCONF server supporting NMDA datastores MAY implement the
>>>    "ietf-netconf" [RFC6241] and "ietf-netconf-nmda" [I-D. ietf-netconf-nmda-
>>>    netconf] modules to enable the NETCONF operations defined in those
>>>    drafts to appear {+restconf}/operations resource.
>>> 
>>> Note: I put "MAY" as RESTCONF may someday have a more native way to do this.
>>>
>>
>> Well, "ietf-netconf" does not really support NMDA well and this is why
>> we have "ietf-netconf-nmda". Does not make much sense to point to
>> "ietf-netconf" in an NMDA document.
>
> But we'd still need lock, unlock, commit, commit-confirmed, etc.,
> right?

These would make RESTCONF server stateful, thus violating REST principles. My
draft

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lhotka-netconf-restconf-transactions/

tries to achieve similar effects in a RESTful way.

Lada

>
> Maybe it's a moot point, since ietf-netconf-nmda requires that ietf-netconf
> is implemented too, but I thought being explicit would be helpful here. 
>
> So, adding something like this to nmda-restconf would be good?
>
>
> Kent // contributor
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67