Subject: [NGO] Netconf XML Schema Query

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 21:32:17 -0700

Hi,

I read your recent draft:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-scott-netconf-schema-query-00.txt

The 'schemaList' element seems reasonable (although I prefer the name 
'schemas').
However, I do not see why a special RPC method is needed at all.
This is just another data model for monitoring, that could be retrieved
with a <get> operation.

The 'identifier' parameter to this special RPC could just as
easily be specified in a subtree or Xpath filter with <get>.

Andy

_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo

---

From: "Mark Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:41:02 -0400

Andy,

Thanks for the comments.

My thinking behind 'schemaList' was that this command/data would only be
the list of supported schemas.  I thought using 'schemas' might imply
that the actual schema(s) would be returned in the response.  Which was
something I had originally included in the draft but decided to drop to
decouple schema query from retrieval.

As for specialized RPC vs. <get>:  the design alternative in sec 3.2.1
does propose <get>.

The main benefit I saw to the specialized RPC is that the client can
make the request without any prior knowledge of the server's data model.
Ie: client does not have to know the subtree or Xpath filter.  In
particular I was hoping to avoid a potential situation where one of the
server's schema itself may define where to get the schemaList.  This
gives the server some freedom in how they choose to model the actual
schema elements on the node without impacting a client's ability to
query the schemaList.

However maybe that's not sufficient benefit, or the same can be achieved
via the <get> if you just specified any empty subtree or filter?

Another option (which I did not include in the draft) was the use of
capability exchange to define the supported schemas.  My thinking to
exclude that option though was potential verbosity of the hello message,
when many schema are supported on the server (esp. multi-release on same
schema on a server).  Especially if a client does not actually require
that data (may already have it, may not use it, etc).

I'm open to suggestions on the merits of one approach over the other.

thx,
Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 12:32 AM
To: Scott, Mark (CAR:2Y00)
Cc: NETCONF Goes On
Subject: Netconf XML Schema Query

Hi,

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-scott-netconf-schema-query-00.
txt

The 'identifier' parameter to this special RPC could just as easily be
specified in a subtree or Xpath filter with <get>.

Andy