Hi,
are we taking this approach only for I2RS or this will be our preferred
solution from now on?
Meaning, every time when a new protocol/WG has certain valid
requirements we will create a new datastore for them?
thanks,
On 9/1/14 10:17 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Joel,
On top of what Jürgen wrote, we stressed the need for such a
requirement document to both I2RS chairs during the last IETF meeting.
The good news is that some of the requirements were mentioned on
the microphone during the Sunday YANG editing session and/or the
NETMOD meeting (my memory fails me).
Regards, Benoit
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 09:58:57PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Juergen,
While I understand the request, I presume that such a
request can
not be met as a working group agreement in the time frame
suggested.
WHile I hope that some of the folks who have been involved
in proposing
the use of YANG for I2RS will write such a draft, I can
not see how we
could even get tot eh point of WG adoption of such a
draft, much less WG
rough consensus on the content, in the time frame you outline.
Of course, I am not one of the chairs or ADs, but it
seems pretty
clear cut to me.
I agree with Joel that the I2RS does not have consensus on the details.
The slides I presented in London and subsequent discussions suggest
this solution:
1) define YANG extension to identify I2RS data so typedefs, etc.
can be shared
in config and state data models
2) define an I2RS datastore
3) define or extend a protocol to manage the I2RS datastore
Let's say there is a new datastore added to the RESTCONF architecture
for I2RS.
Explain how this datastore works. It seems to have the same
validation rules
as YANG running config rules. The only difference seems to be that
the I2RS datastore
is not NV-saved (or NV-loaded at boot-time) like the running datastore.
YANG 1.1 has some cleanup work planned to make the text less
NETCONF-specific.
I don't think there is much datastore and NV-store specific text that
would need to change.
Andy
Joel,
all I need is reasonably agreed upon input. Note that this
request for
input is not coming out of the blue, at least not for those
I2RS folks
who have been at the NETMOD meeting in Toronto.
As NETMOD chair, I do have a target date to deliver YANG 1.1 and I
take that milestone serious. My motivation to delay this by N
months
waiting for I2RS to get their input submitted is very small. I
recall
that there were presentations about "what is missing" bach in
London,
that is March 2014. The regular submission period for YANG 1.1
issues
was 2014-02-23 until 2014-05-07. The interim meeting is mid
September.
/js
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
