Re: [Netconf] Verifing session consensus on RESTCONF as WG item with the maillist

Is there somewhere I can read a description of what problems with using 
NetConf are addressed by using RestConf?  It would be helpful to 
understand the problem beyond "some folks are doing this" before 
supporting or opposing the work item.

Thank you,
Joel

On 11/24/13 2:04 PM, Reinaldo Penno (repenno) wrote:
> I support RESTCONF as a new deliverable.  RESTCONF is an very important
> part of Opendaylight Northbound Interface.
>
> From: <Ersue>, "Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <mehmet.ersue@nsn.com
> <mailto:mehmet.ersue@nsn.com>>
> Date: Sunday, November 24, 2013 at 6:16 AM
> To: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>>
> Subject: [Netconf] Verifing session consensus on RESTCONF as WG item
> with the maillist
>
> Dear Netconf WG,
> in the Netconf session during IETF #88 we discussed the RESTCONF
> protocol and whether it should be developed in the Netconf WG. There
> were around 60 participants in the room.
> The authors of the RESTCONF draft do not want to create a protocol which
> competes with NETCONF and it is seen as beneficial if NETCONF and
> RESTCONF are developed in parallel and aligned with each other. There
> are obviously different projects outside of IETF (e.g. OpenDaylight and
> other MANET oriented projects) which use RESTCONF. The opinion poll
> showed that there is a huge support of the people in the room (and
> nobody against) to develop the RESTCONF protocol in the Netconf WG. As a
> result of the discussion with the AD, the WG chairs got the action to
> prepare a charter update and adopt RESTCONF as the new WG item.
> Though before we do this, the chairs need to verify the consensus in the
> session with the maillist.
> Following text is proposed to use for the charter update:
> “  3. Develop a RESTful protocol (RESTCONF) that provides a programmatic
> interface for accessing data defined in YANG, using the datastores
> defined in NETCONF. The three parts concerning RESTCONF protocol, the
> transport binding over HTTP and the YANG patch operation will be
> prepared modular and in separate drafts. This enables to add a new
> transport binding at a later stage.”
> Please state your opinion on this step forward.
> If you have strong objections against please state your substantial and
> convincing arguments.
> This consensus call will close on December 4, 2013 EOB PT.
> Mehmet & Bert
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>