Re: [Netconf] RESTCONF modularilty

Wojciech Dec <wdec.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 21 August 2014 17:30 UTC

Return-Path: <wdec.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0600E1A06D0 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 mRri2Z72VyTZ for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com (mail-wg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B32F21A0453 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id n12so9389228wgh.33 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=74IyWbGPRqWhaGXOAnoyZ2pdvM1XJQHbHw5Fs60KO50=; b=jHiQP8kYkrSsqCTlzVfrx4cCRmaAJKDmGCZMVH+tiWx2/mAEr+K4HRlEyvWMyCnYtd 7i3xJLw8hoz6TnKfLaf7xyaXnlzotXFgKuFT1YTcg6u5GQik2hD078iLPQt1fmsWOAIT kRFpNp1EVlmpHfuWge8XUwMNrwhBaTnX1FgYnlSCkxY+kM/LUZMjPdV66SNgkRjJmTy6 wlRIpLOKMtrMGygVjfOJUsO4weWS1s3vJT6+DA5fEXMQJw/vg+zNP5fKLkguCH9B8bVE HTJqmxsNdKtaumjTZwmcYV7CRqi09CZEj2ksS+R7stqt9dIJcaRI1FspG4tL/ZSrS8Zz qMsg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.73.115 with SMTP id k19mr5782333wiv.35.1408642216313; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.195.13.201 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <m2a96xly0s.fsf@nic.cz>
References: <D01263B1.7E18B%kwatsen@juniper.net> <m2a96xly0s.fsf@nic.cz>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 19:30:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFFjW4hE5w2_a=wtKuYeuCfiL6uoF3B9Ug6qxY_ofc9DLUwyXA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wojciech Dec <wdec.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043749cbeb47b50501271238"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Imyot8_2h3MG_m7Wi_FrJDaPSa4
Cc: NetConf <netconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] RESTCONF modularilty
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 21 Aug 2014 17:30:21 -0000

On 21 August 2014 16:26, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> writes:
>
> > The RESTCONF authors recently discussed adding support for filtering,
> > sorting, and paging collections (i.e. lists).  One comment was that it
> > was complex and better defined in another draft.  I agree, but more
> > importantly, RESTCONF should be fully modular, providing an ability
> > for implementations to selectively advertise support for various
> > things.  This is exactly the approach we used for the NETCONF Light
> > draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-netconf-light-01), but
> > RESTCONF being a new protocol, there is no reason to not do it from
> > the get go.  This strategy was discussed in Toronto, but we felt we
> > should take it to the list before restructuring the document...
>
> I fully agree with this strategy. Support for individual capabilities
> will be indicated somehow under the "restconf" resource?
>
> ...
>
> >
> > The corollary to RESTCONF might be:
> >
> >     Base Support
> >           - the ability to GET and PUT on the top-level node using XML
> only
> >
> >     Optional Support:
> >           - the ability to do PATCH  (this is already optional)
> >           - the ability to use JSON encoding
>
> I think XML and JSON should be given equal footing, i.e. the server
> could support either or both. Perhaps the "Accept" header on the client
> side and 406/415 status codes on the server side could be enough?
>

+1 re XML and JSON on equal footing.

>
> Lada
>
> >           - the ability to POST/GET/PUT/DELETE subtrees   (PATCH too, is
> support for it is advertised)
> >           - the ability to use "select" with GET operations
> >           - the ability to use "filter" with GET on collection resources
> (i.e. lists) and event streams
> >           - the ability to do pagination with GET on collection
> resources (i.e. lists)
> >           - the ability to do sorting with GET on collection resources
> (i.e. lists)
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kent
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > Netconf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>