Re: [NGO] NETCONF Data Modeling BoF (NDM) proposal

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 06:20:52AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> 
>>> I guess I do not really understand the difference between "an SMI
>>> document is needed that addresses many details that need to be
>>> supported for long-term module management, and interoperability
>>> between modules" and a new DML which would be an experiment.
>> How is a module allowed to change over time?
>> What does the use of the same namespace URI over time mean?
>> How does the manager discover modules and versions?
>> How does a manager compare versions?
>> How does a manager know the difference between
>> a read-create row and a read-only row (or column)?
>> How does a manager know what an agent is supposed to
>> implement to claim a certain level of conformance?
>>
>> These are some of the open issues that NETCONF needs to
>> address, just as SMIv2 addresses these issues for the SNMP protocol.
> 
> It remains to a large extend unclear to me how one can work out all
> these things without having defined what a module is, what a module
> contains, what a notion of a row is (do we still have the notion of
> rows in NETCONF?), what the versioning aspects of making changes to
> things are, and what conformance actually means. But if I am the only
> one who is puzzled, just ignore me.

I guess my draft is unclear then.
These things need to be defined for NETCONF, just as they have
been defined for SNMP.  I think many protocol interoperability details,
such as the <rpc-error> contents, <edit-config> behavior,
should be defined in better detail as well.

A table row in XML is just a complex element with multiple instances,
and there is a key defined for identifying entries.  It is a conceptual row.

> 
> /js
> 

Andy

_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
NGO@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo