-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 01/26/2011 06:58 PM, Stephen Morris wrote: > To restart the dormant discussion on NSCP... >
keeping it on life-support :) > On 13 Dec 2010, at 08:51, Jelte Jansen wrote: > >> It has been said (perhaps by you) that perhaps we ought to think about >> splitting >> up the data model and the protocol. I'm not sure about the advantage of that >> (well, apart from doc length), but thought i'd mention it. > > In part it is document length, but also to allow the development of NSCP to > proceed without getting side-tracked by discussions on whether NETCONF should > be used as the underlying protocol. > So would the 'data-model' be completely abstract or still represented in an existing language (or both, where the language serves 'as an example'?) > >> Two more things, I've also heard complaints about Netconf/yang being >> overkill, >> do we know if this is about netconf, yang, or both? > > I've also heard mutterings along those lines, but nothing definitive. > > NETCONF was proposed as the underlying protocol for the reasons outlined in > the draft. I don't think it is overkill, as anything that implemented NSCP > would need to supply a lot of the functionality that comes with NETCONF. > Right. It was also specifically made for things like this, although 'back in the day' there weren't much ready-to-use libraries for it. I hear things are better now but I must confess I haven't looked :) > With regards to YANG, that was in development around the time NSCP was being > developed. As it was being promoted as a data modelling language for NETCONF, > it made sense to use it for a NETCONF-based application. However, it is new > and the specification, RFC 6020, is over 170 pages long; perhaps that it > putting people off? If we don't use YANG for NSCP, what should be used? > no idea... > >> Related to that, someone proposed a RESTful protocol, but noone made a >> specific >> proposal for that. Should we try to get someone to do that? :) > > If someone would like to formally propose a RESTful approach, that would be a > useful contribution to the discussion. But whatever the underlying protocol, > we still need to get agreement on the data model. > If someone is actually looking into or working on this, please give a ping, even if it isn't much formed yet Jelte -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1KihMACgkQ4nZCKsdOncXb8gCfbE3R0cjs0zoffhcaKX6IV4R2 s/AAoJmxK28zc8EbStIK/K9SmvXiYEzi =zw7f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
