Re: XCAP to Proposed Standard

Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
> 
>> From: "Andy Bierman" <[email protected]>
>> To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email protected]>
>> Cc: <[email protected]>; "Ops-Nm (E-mail)" <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 2:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: XCAP to Proposed Standard
> ...
>> 5) In a general sense there is clearly overlap between NETCONF and XCAP.
>>     I think NETCONF tries to be more content and transport independent,
>>     and the RPC-based architecture is more suited to standard and vendor
>>     "specialized RPC" extensions, which provide a more natural
>>     programming paradigm than a model based on XML document manipulation.
> ...
> 
> However, treating configuration data as document content makes use
> of existing configuration management specifications (webdav / deltav)
> conceivable.

Sure.
I don't want to stop anybody from managing an NE device this way.
NE device configuration is an area of standardization that nobody
can claim any significant success yet, so "overlap" isn't a valid
argument. IMO, the RPC approach has more potential, but time will
tell either way.

> 
> Randy

Andy