IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netconf] ietf crypto types - permanently hidden

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Thu, 04 April 2019 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D191205FB for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9kVSaB11lHPa for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36AA01205F7 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (h-4-215.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [158.174.4.215]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E57C1AE0386; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 19:46:23 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 19:46:23 +0200
Message-Id: <20190404.194623.1178346313710501110.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
Cc: kent+ietf@watsen.net, netconf@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190404164929.fsfga7s4izn7ucx5@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
References: <20190403.134424.1377386644961079970.mbj@tail-f.com> <01000169e929781e-b0dcb6b3-af41-4f9c-ba52-ac4afb7164d4-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20190404164929.fsfga7s4izn7ucx5@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/9pX0h6_rYhgbYPToVOSUXLjEt7M>
Subject: Re: [netconf] ietf crypto types - permanently hidden
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 17:46:29 -0000

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 04:23:23PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > We have always said no, but the reasoning is unclear.  What are the
> > specific objections and is there anyway to alleviate them?
> >
> 
> If editing of all configuration can be done with a single edit-data
> (or edit-config) operation, you simplify the world and you enable
> generic implementations.
> 
> Once you build silos of data that can only be manipulated with special
> purpose operations, you say goodbye to the idea of generic client
> libraries.

And you can no longer create all required config in one transaction;
you have to split it into sending multiple special-purpose actions.
Perhaps also in a certain order, that you have to figure out somehow,
since config might have refererences to other partf of the config
etc.

You can no longer restore a backup with just a copy-config.

So I don't think the reasoning is unclear at all.


/martin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email