On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Reinaldo Penno <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? > > Good question. It is a lot more work to add a new datastore than to tag data as ephemeral in the existing "running" datastore -- if the only difference is no non-volatile support. I think the I2RS WG has to agree on those details first. thanks, > > Andy > > > On 9/1/14 10:17 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Benoit Claise <[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] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing [email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > > > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > >
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
