IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netconf] restconf collections

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Sat, 26 September 2020 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <01000174cb61f1a5-766d1a04-cb3f-4f13-9547-5b3ae4974361-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
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 815A33A0B77 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 10:13:17 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.com
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 FhF2YPGRJKNw for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 10:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a8-31.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-31.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 777413A0B6B for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 10:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=224i4yxa5dv7c2xz3womw6peuasteono; d=amazonses.com; t=1601140028; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:Feedback-ID; bh=aMjg2U5y4NuFUp5FxEoLOZ39V/+tZ+N2yZ3tQ2rCATc=; b=cJ2j/W4hzeJgAySD+cuRKStlT1UslQ2EriwpgdC5jXO5Gg0tn3+B0FtChgg7yDXe kIN74lcU7Ukv9FSMscHQgD5RBZ7fjGYZXWYe0E6BOU3i5zmI50vf6MkegD2fBKWqOtu FOZqZ3CRxKSheZ/wPx23xFFt/Pdcbwm4YmLxeyws=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHTAM0cxaNcb0-6kXP99+cSX9y3y5=P_y9trHTV5R+44Mg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 17:07:07 +0000
Cc: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <01000174cb61f1a5-766d1a04-cb3f-4f13-9547-5b3ae4974361-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <01000174c4eeb24e-c672ebe0-23a1-4f0e-afba-5b44d932e0ed-000000@email.amazonses.com> <CABCOCHQVHtS-8Yxt5=FRtfVmHJh9WAC_V3gg7fmnkTsn4oH_aw@mail.gmail.com> <01000174c631e0c3-8b790f60-b8f4-44f1-9d7f-e6a1d826ecd4-000000@email.amazonses.com> <CABCOCHTAM0cxaNcb0-6kXP99+cSX9y3y5=P_y9trHTV5R+44Mg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2020.09.26-54.240.8.31
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/HNF53lmgW__LHw-j67RbXR7rEbM>
Subject: Re: [netconf] restconf collections
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: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 17:13:18 -0000

Hi Andy,

> Our customers agree with you.  Some of them only use our <get-bulk>, and stopped using <get> and <get-config>.

> Since it is implemented as an RPC, all YANG-based protocols can use it.
> Obviously you need XPath filtering (XSLT-style) to select the list entries of interest.
> Count and depth and other parameters from <get> are also useful.
> 
> (My concern is that the IETF version will be too complex to implement or use as the feature list grows.)

Ack.


> There is no extra complexity to support config vs. operational data.
> I don't see the value in restricting the operation.

Okay.  This appears to be the prevailing interest.


> It is easy. Use RPC operations which map to RESTCONF POST automatically.

Gotcha.  

These RPCs could also be used for RESTCONF, but much better would be to use query parameters in the GET calls.


K.

v2.2.0 | Report a Bug | By Email