On 7/15/16, 10:23 AM, "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote:
> > >On 15/07/2016 15:16, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> >> On 7/14/16, 4:00 PM, "Kent Watsen" <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote: >> >>> [This thread took on a life of its own, so I’m replying to this email >> >from two days ago] >>> I had assumed the plan/recommendation would be: >>> - for works-in-progress, to evaluate if their models can be improved. >>> - for existing RFCs, do nothing (though we may want to consider >>> RFC7223). >>> >>> By “if their models can be improved” in the above, I’m implying that >>> having a top-level -state branch may still be the best solution for >>>some >>> models. It’s up to each model designer to decide the best approach for >>> their models. >>> >>> Makes sense? >> I think the statement “if their models can be improved” leaves too much >> subjectivity in the guideline. Either we are going to avail the revised >> data store model to avoid duplication of YANG schema nodes or we are >>going >> to leverage the new data stores solely to meet the intended/applied >>config >> requirement. If it is the latter and a good portion of the network >>devices >> will not support, then I would agree. >Devices can still leverage the new operational state datastore (and >hence allow foo and foo-state to be merged) without having to supporting >an intended/applied configuration split (i.e. they just treat applied = >intended). Right - but then the applied configuration wouldn’t be available for the cases where it does differ from intended configuration. > >I'm keen to get the models simpler were possible because I think that >will help with their longevity and ease of use. For the record, I agree. However, reaching consensus will be difficult. Thanks, Acee > >Thanks, >Rob > > >> >> >> >> >>> Kent // as a contributor >>> >>> >>> On 7/12/16, 11:23 AM, "netmod on behalf of Lou Berger" >>> <netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of lber...@labn.net> wrote: >>> >>> Acee, >>> >>> I personally was assuming we'd follow 3, but I'd like to understand >>> the implication of 2 as I'm not sure I really understand what you're >>> thinking here. Can you elaborate what you're thinking here? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Lou >>> >>> On 7/11/2016 12:36 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >>>> While there are details to be worked out between the two data stores >>>> models (as indicated below), we now have implicit modeling of applied >>>> configuration. Existing models (both standard and draft) do not take >>>> this >>>> into consideration and, consequently, much of the state that is >>>>modeled >>>> explicitly represents the application configuration. For the RFC >>>>models, >>>> it probably doesn’t make much sense to redo them (unless they are >>>>being >>>> reworked for other reasons). This still leaves the existing WG draft >>>> models for which we have basically 3 options: >>>> >>>> 1. Do nothing - allow them proceed as they are with multiple ways >>>>of >>>> representing the applied configuration. This would provide visibility >>>>to >>>> the data independent of whether or not the device supported the >>>>revised >>>> data-stores supporting implicit retrieval of the applied >>>>configuration. >>>> 2. Prune out the redundant data nodes except those required as list >>>> keys, etc, since they can be obtained from the applied state data >>>>store. >>>> 3. #2 plus collapse the config (read-write) and system-state >>>> (read-only) into common containers. No more branching of >>>> <model-name>-config and <model-name>-state at the top level of the >>>> model. >>>> >>>> At I high-level, I feel these are the options. I’m not married to any >>>> one >>>> of these and the worse thing we could do is hold up progression of the >>>> existing YANG model drafts for another couple years while we debate >>>>the >>>> best course. Having said that, #3 is compelling since it will yield >>>>the >>>> most concise models and colocates the schema data nodes for any >>>>managed >>>> object. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Acee >>>> >>>> On 7/1/16, 12:36 PM, "netmod on behalf of Lou Berger" >>>> <netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of lber...@labn.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> It's time to make a consensus call on this topic, so that we can all >>>>> move >>>>> on to defining a solution and aligning modules under development. >>>>>Based >>>>> on the feedback received and the overall discussions on the topic, we >>>>> see >>>>> that there is consensus to follow a datastore based approach to >>>>> supporting operational state, i.e., direction 'B'. >>>>> >>>>> We will be asking the authors of [4] and [5] to review their >>>>>proposals >>>>> (individual drafts) in Berlin, as well as to highlight differences >>>>>and >>>>> suggest ways that their work could be consolidated. Of course, others >>>>> may >>>>> also choose to submit their own proposals. Given the importance of >>>>>this >>>>> work, we will be looking to have active discussion on the topic both >>>>>in >>>>> Berlin and on the list, with an objective of having a draft ready for >>>>> considerations as a WG document by the November IETF. >>>>> >>>>> We have reviewed this decision with our AD and the NetConf chairs and >>>>> have agreed to begin this work in NetMod. We certainly expect to >>>>> coordinate the work with the NetConf WG and re-home work as/if >>>>>needed. >>>>> >>>>> Finally, we'd also like to thank all those who have contributed to >>>>>this >>>>> discussion to date, from problem identification to proposed >>>>>solutions, >>>>> and we look forward to your continued efforts to publish a standard >>>>> solution. >>>>> >>>>> Lou (and Kent) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 6/7/2016 10:19 AM, Lou Berger wrote: >>>>>> All, >>>>>> >>>>>> We want to provide an update based on the off line discussions >>>>>> related to OpState Solutions that we have been having and solicit >>>>>> input from the WG. >>>>>> >>>>>> All authors of current solution drafts [1,2,3] together with those >>>>>> who helped conduct the solutions analysis* were invited to the these >>>>>> discussions -- with the objective of coming up with a single >>>>>> consolidated proposal to bring to the WG. (I/Lou acted as >>>>>>facilitator >>>>>> as Kent and Juergen were and are involved with the technical >>>>>>details.) >>>>>> >>>>>> The discussions have yielded some results but, unfortunately, >>>>>> not a single consolidated proposal as hoped, but rather two >>>>>> alternate directions -- and clearly we need to choose one: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) Adopt the conventions for representing state/config >>>>>> based on Section 6 of [1]. >>>>>> >>>>>> From a model definition perspective, these conventions >>>>>> impact every model and every model writer. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) Model OpState using a revised logical datastore definition >>>>>> as introduced in [4] and also covered in [5]. There is >>>>>> also a variant of this that we believe doesn't significantly >>>>>> impact this choice. >>>>>> >>>>>> With this approach, model definitions need no explicit >>>>>> changes to support applied configuration. >>>>>> >>>>>> >From a technology/WG standpoint, we believe an approach >>>>>> that doesn't impact every model written (i.e., #2) is superior. >>>>>> The counterpoint to this is that the conventions based >>>>>> approach (i.e., #1) is available today and being followed in >>>>>> OpenConfig defined models. >>>>>> >>>>>> We would like to hear opinions on this from the WG before >>>>>> declaring one of the following as the WG direction: >>>>>> >>>>>> A) models that wish to support applied configuration MUST >>>>>> follow conventions based on [1] -- and the WG needs to >>>>>> formalize these conventions. >>>>>> or >>>>>> B) no explicit support is required for models to support >>>>>> applied configuration -- and that the WG needs to >>>>>> formalize an opstate solution based on the approach >>>>>> discussed in [4] and [5]. >>>>>> >>>>>> We intend to close on this choice before Berlin. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> Lou (and co-chairs) >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01 >>>>>> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kwatsen-netmod-opstate-02 >>>>>> [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang-02 >>>>>> [4] >>>>>> >>>>>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-netmod-revised-datastores-0 >>>>>>0 >>>>>> [5] >>>>>> >>>>>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilton-netmod-refined-datastores-00 >>>>>> * - Chris H. and Acee L. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> netmod mailing list >>>>>> netmod@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> netmod mailing list >>>>> netmod@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> netmod mailing list >>>> netmod@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> netmod mailing list >>> netmod@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> netmod@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
