The Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)
RFC 4825

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

(Jon Peterson) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2006-07-05)
No email
send info
The following questions and comments were raised by Andy Bierman. 

1) Is this intended only for use with SIP?

2) Is there any access control model for securing data?
    (What is the security model?)

3) Is there a persistence model for data?
    (IMO there are problems with trying to abstract a NE device
     configuration as an XML document, and this is one of them)

4) The examples would be easier to read if the XML was pretty-printed.

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.

I realize that this document is returning from the RFC queue after having been approved by the IESG and these questions may have been already debated and answered. Yet, it would be good if the editor would review and address them prior to publication.

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection