On 17/03/2017 14:48, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
Hi Robert,
I2RS has a different environment and datastore framework than NETCONF.
NETCONF uses a different datastore framework compared to RESTCONF.
Sure. But there should still be *definitive* references of what those
datastores mean. Where should the definitive reference for the
"intended" and "operational" datastores go?
DS conceptual model describes an overall picture and defines how it could
like.
Such a concept providing the basis for many environments cannot be
standardized.
Why not?
Protocol WGs are in charge to choose a consistent subset out of the DS
conceptual model and standardize the usage of these DSs as part of the
protocol specification.
OK. But where is the definitive reference to those datastores. Having
it is an "Informational" draft would seem to be a wrong.
Thanks,
Rob
BR,
Mehmet
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Wilton [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 3:04 PM
To: Mehmet Ersue <[email protected]>; 'Lou Berger' <[email protected]>;
'Juergen Schoenwaelder' <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal
Hi,
Would 7950bis be allowed to have a normative reference to an Informational
RFC that defined the YANG datastores?
If we did a 7950bis document (and it isn't clear that one is actually
required to
support the revised datastores draft) then does that mean we would also
need to have a new version of YANG?
That would potentially seem like a backwards step. Also what would it
mean
for an implementation that is aware of the new datastores but is using a
mix
of YANG modules with different versions?
I don't understand why the revised datastores draft should not be
standards
track once the various appendices have been moved out, noting that they
are really only in the one draft at this stage because it seemed like that
would
make it easier for folks to review and comment on.
Is the only issue here which WG the draft is being worked on?
Thanks,
Rob
On 17/03/2017 13:22, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
I think YANG identities should be standardized with 7950bis.
Mehmet
-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 12:28 PM
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]>;
Mehmet Ersue <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Kent Watsen' <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal
Juergen,
Thank you for the input. I think your point highlights how the
technical contents of a document drives the intended status of a
document.
Lou
PS as a reminder to all, intended status of documents is *not*
typically included in charters and are not included in the distributed
version.
On March 16, 2017 2:44:53 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 02:50:06PM +0100, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
That said different people including Netconf WG co-chairs think the
DS concept document is Informational in nature and should be
published as
an
Informational concept to be used in and adopted for the needs in
diverse
protocol WGs. This is as I think also important to avoid an
overlapping between NETCONF and NETMOD charters.
The current datastore draft includes concrete YANG idenity
definitions for datastores and origins and these definitions better
be standards track.
/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
