On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:18:46PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> I am more concerned about use cases that are not known so far, and so I am
> against standardizing this (or any other) workflow as the only one supported
> by NETCONF/RESTCONF and YANG. I believe both the protocols and YANG can work
> with any set of datastores, but their choice depends on the use case at hand.
> Why should IoT developers be exposed to the running-intended-applied
> complexity, even if they are allowed to lump all three into one?
>
Please point me to the statement in the I-D that makes you believe an
implementation is required to support all datastores.
> > There are no standard mechanisms that cause <running> to be
> > different from <intended>, so I would agree the intended datastore
> > needs a lot more standards support before it is useful.
> >
>
> The only difference seems to be the presence of templates but I don't know
> what they are.
>
The I-D says:
| // e.g., removal of 'inactive'
| // nodes, expansion of templates
So it is not just templates. And yes, these are things several
real-world implementations can do but where the IETF did not yet
managed to standardize anything. The basic question is whether we want
a model that is (a) capable to match real-world implementation and
that allows for future standards of existing proprietary technology or
(b) we go with what we have today (either chartered or published) and
we keep revising the model as we move ahead.
/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
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
