[chair hat on]
>But I wonder whether the OpenConfig operators might also ask the WG the >same question of whether a datastore solution is orders of magnitude >better than the OpenConfig solution? > >My best guess is that at the moment they would regard a datastore >solution as being inferior to their current working solution (for which >they have models that are further ahead than IETF, running code, some >major vendors committed to implementing those models, and seeming more >interest from the large network operators in using those models). > >Will vendors actually implement a datastore based solution if the >OpenConfig operators (who are raising the requirement) don't actually >want/need to use it? > >Then I guess the final question I have is whether SDO produced models >will still be relevant if they lag 2 years behind the OpenConfig models, >and those models have become a defacto standard? Let’s just focus on solving the engineering problem at hand. The OC folks are more than welcomed to assist (seriously guys, where are you?), but let’s not speculate on their positions. >> If the only real technical argument is "I need to >> be able to retrieve data from multiple datastores in a single RPC >> operation"... <SNIP/> I want to point out again (see [1]) that there is no requirement listed to return two configuration datastores in one RPC response - only the diff is specified as being required. Yes, solution #1 has this ability, but that doesn’t translate to a requirement. Unless we hear from operators that this was a missed requirement, we should not view it as such. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ei_Xhnz22NoeMjlqY42DrUFGalI Thanks, Kent _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
