Re: [Netconf] Netconf Light or Netconf for constrained devices

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:48:30PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> On 03/30/2012 10:10 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:07:46AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> >>But assuming one insisted on using a subset of NETCONF for some reason,
> >>one can write an applicability statement that documented how to
> >>advertise the ietf-netconf module plus some deviations to
> >>identify what is missing from the implementation.  (The AS is only needed
> >>because we are assuming implementers are too dumb to understand RFC 6020
> >>I suppose.)
> >
> >This is kind of funny. The I-D actually says an incomplete NETCONF
> >implementation calls itself 'NETCONF Light' (and not 'NETCONF'2) while
> >you seem to prefer that an incomplete NETCONF implementation calls
> >itself 'NETCONF' and then posts some deviations.
> >
> >(While server implementors might be too dumb, it might also be that
> >client implementors are too dumb to handle deviations well.)
> >
> 
> There is no NETCONF Light -- and I hope there never will be one.
> That is just a meaningless marketing term.  NETCONF for Constrained
> Devices might be OK if it provided some meaningful set of CM functionality.
> 
> Your draft assumes that customers are too dumb to know the difference.

The way NETCONF Light is defined in the I-D, it is not a marketing
term. I understand you do not like the -01 I-D, I can follow your
argument that some set of NETCONF operations should be mandatory, the
rest however just seems to be noise.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>