On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 10:17:14AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > I agree with Joel that the I2RS does not have consensus on the details.
I think we continue to have consensus but not in enough detail to declare victory. Below, you identify much of what we've previously discussed: > 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 And how this was to be different than ephemeral data, if at all. > 2) define an I2RS datastore I suspect we have consensus on this. > 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. Exactly. > 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. Mostly the ability to tag things emphemeral. More on that in a later message. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
