On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 11:36:11AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > > I disagree that the datastore model is a protocol specific aspect. I > > consider datastores an architectural component binding data models and > > protocols together. In fact, the 'traditional' datastore model > > I would agree with this if datastores were a general concept in YANG, but the > revised-datastores draft explicitly introduces the "intended" and "applied" > datastores that may be irrelevant to other protocols using YANG, and even > needn't be used in all NETCONF implementations. I wouldn't call this "an > architectural component" of YANG. >
An architectural component of this new management framework (that does not have a name). The fact that not all protocols may expose all datastores is IMHO not a reason that the datastore model is not an architectural framework. > If you are saying that it will have nontrivial impact on YANG, I would like > to see it explained in sec. 6.3. Without this information I am quite > reluctant to agree with the adoption. An operational state datastore has implications how one writes data models. It may not directly affect YANG itself but surely the usage of YANG. > See above - architectural aspects need to be relevant to all protocols. Yes, but relevant to all protocols does not mean every protocol needs to expose say all datastores. But every protocol should be clear about how what it exposes relates to the architectural framework. /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
