IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] netconf-binary-encoding comments

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Fri, 06 July 2018 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 162FB130F02 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jul 2018 10:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 9KL4MmM2RmQE for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jul 2018 10:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from anna.localdomain (firewallix.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.247]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33305130ECC for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jul 2018 10:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by anna.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8927222F78C5; Fri, 6 Jul 2018 19:23:08 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 19:23:08 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Robert Wilton <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180706172308.5ro5cjv3x7ujopsx@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: Robert Wilton <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
References: <14395e68-eb71-7766-d4d2-4de0ea67681f@ericsson.com> <CABCOCHRJM5vTgTXcNircjcn6DCqK5fzW3E2rjMM6sb3A3Edz_g@mail.gmail.com> <79d3af9b-dd0c-833b-491f-a25a54a38559@cisco.com> <CABCOCHQfwND7uezS_ykQ4G-v_JPNqTx0Pw3hJVqTVB83XqJgzw@mail.gmail.com> <d6109edb-d54d-2e58-d830-6410f1a22013@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d6109edb-d54d-2e58-d830-6410f1a22013@cisco.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180622
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/EGjdeFobtOcMXPNAekugwpyQNOU>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] netconf-binary-encoding comments
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing 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: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 17:23:14 -0000

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 05:38:28PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> 
> My consideration was more: where should the NETCONF WG be spending its
> effort?
>

So is there running code? Who is doing binary NETCONF and who is doing
binary RESTCONF? What are the _measured_ (not expected) savings with
binary NETCONF and binary RESTCONF? If all the running code moving
binary values is neither NETCONF nor RESTCONF, why would we spent
effort to extend NETCONF so that it can support multiple encodings?
Are people eager to migrate from what they use to this new solution?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email