> On 6 Jan 2017, at 20:57, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Mehmet Ersue <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Juergen, > > I don't think it is duplicate work. One is as I understand the architecture > and concept document you were asking for > and the other draft is the standard DS framework RFC to be used as the basis > for different documents. > > > I do not understand the difference between these 2 documents. > > There should be 1 document that is protocol-independent that includes: > - definition of datastores > - discussion of interactions between datastores > - use-cases in scope for new datastores > - applicability guidance for server developers
The current document involves quite a lot of hand-waving, and that's why I was also reluctant to accept it as a WG standard-track deliverable. I don't care that much about the number of documents that depend on it because any mistakes may be pretty expensive here. I pointed out some gaps in my previous review, e.g. it talks about templates without defining what they are. If running contains templates, does it mean it needn't be valid according to the data model? > > Each protocol that wants to use these new datastores needs to define > mechanisms to do that in a separate document. > That's one part, the other are changes inflicted to YANG. I think the best way would be to make YANG independent of a particular setup of datastores and their semantics. Then I2RS or anybody else can do whatever they need without affecting YANG spec any more. I believe this wouldn't be a terribly difficult thing to do, but Juergen wants me to write a meta-model document first. Lada > > > > Cheers, > Mehmet > > > Andy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 7:45 PM > To: Mehmet Ersue <[email protected]> > Cc: 'Netconf' <[email protected]>; 'NetMod WG' <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Netconf] Decision on the Intended Status of the Revised DS > Draft WAS:RE: :candidate, :writable-running and RESTCONF edits > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 07:04:14PM +0100, Mehmet Ersue wrote: > > > > It is correct that we need a standard track document for the new DS > > framework - to provide a basis for other RFCs to develope. However the > > current DT solution draft has not been prepared as a standard track > > document nor it has standard relevant content. Such concept description is > > usually prepared as an architecture document (see example in > > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6244> RFC 6244). > > > > As I stated earlier I believe “a new protocol- and language-independent > > standard document” should be prepared defining the generic datastore > > framework (based on and following the concept in the DT solution draft). > > > > To me, this sounds like duplicate work for no real technical value. If the > existance of two WG results into actions like this, we should seriously > consider the option to merge NETMOD and NETCONF into one WG. > > /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 > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
