Subject: Re: [Netconf] 4741bis -- :url capability issues

From: Phil Shafer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 16:40:04 -0400

Martin Bjorklund writes:
>(But I don't think this is an important feature, and would rather see
>it removed.)

I'm not on board with a 4741bis that removes features or "breaks"
previously working implementations.

There are many things that NETCONF allows that YANG does not, but
that doesn't mean we can reasonably redesign NETCONF into a YANG-only
transport.

Thanks,
 Phil

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 May 2010 15:43:18 -0700

> previously working implementations.

But there are no implementations of 4741bis yet,
because it isn't done yet.  Your conformance to RFC 4741
is not affected by this document.

> that doesn't mean we can reasonably redesign NETCONF into a YANG-only

I agreed with you that the 4741bis document
does not have to forbid a string <config> element instead
of an XML sub-tree.  But there is no need to support a string
<config> element in the standard.  If the NETCONF vendor does not
choose to implement any modular XML content, which may include
YANG modules, then the market can decide if that is useful.

I think it is better to define modular content in XML namespaces.
An un-versioned, no-schema, string database seems to retain all
the bad parts of CLI.  Why bother?

>  Phil

Andy