mediumMultiple Select
200-901 Practice Question: Which TWO are benefits of using model-driven…
Which TWO are benefits of using model-driven programmability (e.g., NETCONF/RESTCONF) over traditional CLI scripting for network automation?
⚠ Common exam trap
Cisco often tests the misconception that model-driven programmability is just a 'new way to type CLI commands,' but the key benefit is the use of structured, machine-readable data (XML/JSON) and protocol-level operations that decouple automation from device-specific CLI syntax.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Data is structured and machine-readable (e.g., XML/JSON).
Option D is correct because NETCONF/RESTCONF exchange structured, schema-defined data encoded in XML or JSON (YANG-modeled), so automation tools can parse and manipulate configuration and state programmatically rather than screen-scraping unstructured CLI text. Option E is correct because RESTCONF exposes a standards-based HTTP/HTTPS interface, letting any language with an HTTP client library (Python requests, Go net/http, curl, etc.) manage devices without vendor-specific CLI expect scripts. Option A is wrong: NETCONF/RESTCONF are not inherently lower-latency than CLI; transport overhead (SSH/HTTP, XML/JSON encoding) can even be higher, and latency is not the benefit being claimed. Option B is wrong: model-driven programmability requires learning YANG models, RPC operations (get-config, edit-config), and protocol semantics, which is additional learning beyond CLI commands. Option C is wrong: NETCONF/RESTCONF use XML/JSON payloads and RPC semantics, not CLI syntax, so debugging involves protocol and data-model knowledge rather than reusing CLI syntax.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Reduces network latency because it uses a lighter protocol.
Why it's wrong here
NETCONF and RESTCONF do not reduce network latency; they standardise configuration and state retrieval, and transport overhead is not their benefit. It is tempting because lighter protocols can cut latency, and a latency-sensitive transport choice would be correct where protocol weight is the actual constraint.
- ✗
Requires no additional learning beyond CLI commands.
Why it's wrong here
Model-driven interfaces demand new YANG, schema and protocol knowledge, so claiming no additional learning contradicts their purpose. It is tempting because CLI familiarity lowers initial effort, and CLI scripting would be the right choice when engineers cannot invest in learning new tooling.
- ✗
Easier to debug because it uses the same syntax as CLI.
Why it's wrong here
NETCONF and RESTCONF use structured XML or JSON payloads, not CLI syntax, so debugging differs fundamentally. It is tempting because CLI troubleshooting feels familiar, and CLI scripting would be correct where teams already possess that syntax fluency and tooling.
- ✓
Data is structured and machine-readable (e.g., XML/JSON).
Why this is correct
NETCONF and RESTCONF return structured XML or JSON payloads, so automation tools parse fields directly rather than scraping free-form CLI text. This satisfies the stem's benefit requirement: machine-readable data enables reliable programmatic validation and configuration changes across multi-vendor devices.
- ✓
Allows network devices to be managed using any programming language with HTTP libraries.
Why this is correct
RESTCONF exposes device management through HTTP verbs, so any language with an HTTP library can drive it. This satisfies the stem's benefit requirement by removing dependence on vendor-specific CLI tooling or SSH screen-scraping, letting Python, Go or Java manage devices uniformly.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every 200-901 question from scratch — 975 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This 200-901 practice question is part of Courseiva's free Cisco certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the 200-901 exam.