Juergen, On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 02:35:33PM +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > Frankly, there is no full alternate proposal either. The overlay model > has been discussed at quite some detail at a NETMOD interim. I am > happy to point at the meeting minutes. The question perhaps really is > whether (a) I2RS has requirements to be addresses and NETMOD/NETCONF > looks at solutions or whether (b) I2RS casts a solution into stone to > be run through the NETCONF working group or whether (c) creates a > solution on its own independently of any other NETMOD/NETCONF > requirements.
During that interim, we did discuss a number of details regarding overlays. We also discussed a number of issues that overlays have when ephemeral state was not disjoint from static configuration state. As a result of that discussion and further presentation at a later I2RS meeting regarding the Venn diagram interactions of static and ephemeral configuration state, my latest draft attempts to codify behaviors that shouldn't be problematic in either proposed form or in overlay. The point of frustration for all parties seems to be that while the paragraph from you above seems to indicate that there is some understanding of the requirements, I am unable to provide text that illustrates either requirement or potential solution to the matter. All parties are spending their resources saying "I think I understand this point, but this is wrong." If the points are understood well enough to disagree with potential solutions, I would suggest that they may be clear enough for both protocol and data modeling experts to contribute text that either clarifies the requirements to the collective experts' needs or similarly a proposal documenting a solution. These fundamental failures suggest a few possibilities: 1. There is a complete failure to properly communicate. If so, we should find replacement parties to carry on the work. We had some declared interest in a design team. Sue has, I believe, contacted people about it. Those individuals should take over the work. 2. Netconf/restconf/yang are inappropriate tools and we have wasted the Working Group's time. I don't believe this as my employer has ephemeral datastores in an upcoming release. It does not, however, have full I2RS properties such as priority or secondary-id. 3. The relevant experts are trying to get I2RS ephemeral state work to die. If so, let's have the relevant discussion either publicly or privately so we can stop wasting people's IETF cycles. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
