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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 01:27:04PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> ...
> >You correctly figured out that section 2 provides two motivations
> >(sections 2.1 and 2.2) but you incorrectly lump them together thereby
> >creating noise but not a sound argument.
> 
> So you admit that sec. 2.2 has nothing to do with constrained devices.

I think you are aware of the history of this document and the
discussions around it. Its all openly documented, there is nothing I
have to admit.

> Because the WG chairs asked if people wanted to work on
> NETCONF for constrained devices.  They did not ask if the
> WG wants to work on NETCONF Light.

Please remember that -00 was already called NETCONF Light.

> If the WG comes to some consensus on the problem space, then
> we can talk about your 'feature-based' solution that doesn't
> actually work because there are no corresponding if-feature
> statements in the ietf-netconf module that would make the
> new features relevant in YANG.

We can augment if-feature statements into ietf-netconf.yang if you
think this is the proper way of doing things. ;-)

/js

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