> On 11 Jan 2017, at 10:36, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 10 Jan 2017, at 09:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:20:36AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>>> >>>> I think we need protocol and YANG specs that are not tied to any >>>> particular model and that are thus capable of matching unforeseen >>>> real-world implementations. This is no sci-fi, HTTP and XML schema >>>> languages work this way. >>>> >>> >>> I disagree that HTTP and XML schema languages do the same thing. Our >>> goal is interoperable configuration of network devices; the notion of >> >> Even now, a client that's programmed to write straight to running >> isn't interoperable with a server that has candidate and read-only >> running. A RESTCONF server that supports only JSON isn't interoperable >> with a client that supports only XML. >> >> We are not in a situation that every pair of a randomly chosen server >> and client need to be interoperable. It's IMO perfectly fine if IoT >> and ISP networks use different clients. Yet, both can still use the >> same RESTCONF, same YANG, and even same YANG modules. > > The fact is that that data models are written with a certain set of > protocol features and datastores in mind (the "meta-model"). Some > examples: > > If we had an "operational-state" datastore like the one proposed, we > would not see the /foo vs /foo-state split.
Yes, but I assume this will go away anyway. However, we can still have YANG modules (and complete schemas) designed for the operational datastore. The important property of the "meta-model" so far has been that config and state data are separate, and this is not going to change. > > If SNMP would have had a CREATE operation, MIBs would not have used > RowStatus. If NETCONF didn't have a way to create instances, we would > have seen something similar in YANG models. > > If NETCONF had a way to add comments to any node in a datastore, we > wouldn't have "leaf description" sprinkled throughout the models. > > If NETCONF didn't have a generic way to filter retreived data, we'd > see lots of specific get-* rpcs in YANG models. Maybe, but are the last three points relevant to this discussion? Lada > > > > /martin -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
