On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 08:52:48PM +0000, Robert Wilton wrote: > > Just relying on meta-data to relate config and state would probably add > a lot of relations noise to the models. I would imagine that this would > make the models source YANG files harder to read, and potentially have a > slight negative performance impact in the clients - which may be > important if they have to relate many nodes. > > Hence why I think that it is best to use co-location where possible, and > just use explicit meta-data where the nodes are further apart in the > data tree. >
For me, the most obvious and least disrupting solution remains a new datastore. We already have running and startup, it seems logical to extend this with an applied datastore. If there is a need to retrieve data from multiple data stores in a single RPC call, then lets define an RPC that does it. > This still leaves the question as to what to do with the interfaces vs > interfaces-state. There would seem to be two possible solutions to me: > (1) merge the trees together as per OpenConfig, or (2) add a special > case rule for interfaces. I think that this is an issue that neither > Kent's nor my draft fully addresses. I assume there are more data models out there (implemented, deployed) that follow the RFC 7223 model. And there are cases where operational state goes beyond applied config so I am not sure merging really helps anyone. If the verbs (=RPCs) are too restrictive, lets extend the verbs instead of forcing even more complexity on the data models. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
