On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 12:06:34PM +0200, Per Hedeland wrote:
> On 2020-05-05 11:55, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 11:45:41AM +0200, Per Hedeland wrote:
> >> On 2020-05-05 11:00, Martin Björklund wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> If we were to redo YANG, I would prefer to have a single statement
> >>> "operation", either on the top-level, or tied to a node.
> >>
> >> So, no rpc statement, and thereby no possibility to extend NETCONF
> >> with new RPCs? (Or to be precise, YANG would extend NETCONF with
> >> exactly one RPC, called "operation"?)
> >>
> >
> > OLD
> >
> > rpc foo {}
> > list something { action bar {} }
> >
> > NEW
> >
> > operation foo {}
> > list something { operation bar {} }
>
> Yes, that much is obvious, my question was really about the NETCONF
> encoding.
>
> > Syntactic sugar if you will.
>
> So you're saying that the NETCONF encoding of "operation foo" at the
> top level would be an RPC called "foo", while the NETCONF encoding of
> "operation foo" elsewhere would be an RPC called "action"?
>
Yes. Unless you want to change the protocol (or the protocols) as
well, which would involve another WG (or even WGs). Perhaps this is
what will happen if we were to start this.
But ideally, we would use a YANG next activity to get the interface
between YANG, the encodings of YANG defined data, and the protocols
better worked out (since we now know that we have several of them to
take care of and we I think we learned where we could have made things
simpler).
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
