Re: [Netconf] Verifing session consensus on RESTCONF as WG item with the maillist

Hi,

Sec. 1.1 of draft-bierman-netconf-restconf-02.txt has some text.

I will start a list to throw darts at:
  - NETCONF does not have a resource management model
  - NETCONF is session-based, and even some simple management tasks require
    several request/response pairs to complete
  - NETCONF allows a lot of server variance instead of a unified abstraction
    of the local configuration. This complicates management code.
  - Many more client tools are available for HTTP/REST than NETCONF/SSH
  - JSON is widely deployed and more efficient than XML

Andy

On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>wrote:

> Is there somewhere I can read a description of what problems with using
> NetConf are addressed by using RestConf?  It would be helpful to understand
> the problem beyond "some folks are doing this" before supporting or
> opposing the work item.
>
> Thank you,
> Joel
>
> On 11/24/13 2:04 PM, Reinaldo Penno (repenno) wrote:
>
>> I support RESTCONF as a new deliverable.  RESTCONF is an very important
>> part of Opendaylight Northbound Interface.
>>
>> From: <Ersue>, "Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <mehmet.ersue@nsn.com
>> <mailto:mehmet.ersue@nsn.com>>
>> Date: Sunday, November 24, 2013 at 6:16 AM
>> To: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>>
>> Subject: [Netconf] Verifing session consensus on RESTCONF as WG item
>> with the maillist
>>
>> Dear Netconf WG,
>> in the Netconf session during IETF #88 we discussed the RESTCONF
>> protocol and whether it should be developed in the Netconf WG. There
>> were around 60 participants in the room.
>> The authors of the RESTCONF draft do not want to create a protocol which
>> competes with NETCONF and it is seen as beneficial if NETCONF and
>> RESTCONF are developed in parallel and aligned with each other. There
>> are obviously different projects outside of IETF (e.g. OpenDaylight and
>> other MANET oriented projects) which use RESTCONF. The opinion poll
>> showed that there is a huge support of the people in the room (and
>> nobody against) to develop the RESTCONF protocol in the Netconf WG. As a
>> result of the discussion with the AD, the WG chairs got the action to
>> prepare a charter update and adopt RESTCONF as the new WG item.
>> Though before we do this, the chairs need to verify the consensus in the
>> session with the maillist.
>> Following text is proposed to use for the charter update:
>> “  3. Develop a RESTful protocol (RESTCONF) that provides a programmatic
>> interface for accessing data defined in YANG, using the datastores
>> defined in NETCONF. The three parts concerning RESTCONF protocol, the
>> transport binding over HTTP and the YANG patch operation will be
>> prepared modular and in separate drafts. This enables to add a new
>> transport binding at a later stage.”
>> Please state your opinion on this step forward.
>> If you have strong objections against please state your substantial and
>> convincing arguments.
>> This consensus call will close on December 4, 2013 EOB PT.
>> Mehmet & Bert
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Netconf mailing list
>> Netconf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>