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

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On 03/30/2012 10:10 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:07:46AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>> But assuming one insisted on using a subset of NETCONF for some reason,
>> one can write an applicability statement that documented how to
>> advertise the ietf-netconf module plus some deviations to
>> identify what is missing from the implementation.  (The AS is only needed
>> because we are assuming implementers are too dumb to understand RFC 6020
>> I suppose.)
>
> This is kind of funny. The I-D actually says an incomplete NETCONF
> implementation calls itself 'NETCONF Light' (and not 'NETCONF'2) while
> you seem to prefer that an incomplete NETCONF implementation calls
> itself 'NETCONF' and then posts some deviations.
>
> (While server implementors might be too dumb, it might also be that
> client implementors are too dumb to handle deviations well.)
>

There is no NETCONF Light -- and I hope there never will be one.
That is just a meaningless marketing term.  NETCONF for Constrained
Devices might be OK if it provided some meaningful set of CM functionality.

Your draft assumes that customers are too dumb to know the difference.

> /js
>

Andy