Kent Watsen <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Lada, > > I think some of what you're getting at is in these guidelines: > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-01#section-5 > > But you're thinking about something more generalized?
Most likely yes - what I have in mind is something like datastore modelling mini-language. To some extent, NETCONF already does this via capabilities: server implementors can choose and advertize different variants of running-candidate-startup organization. Lada > > Kent // contributor > > > -----ORIGINAL MESSAGE----- > >> On 17 Mar 2017, at 15:46, Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 17/03/2017 14:32, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>>> On 17 Mar 2017, at 15:04, Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Would 7950bis be allowed to have a normative reference to an Informational >>>> RFC that defined the YANG datastores? >>> My idea is that 7950bis should be made independent of any particular set of >>> datastores, so such a normative reference shouldn't be needed. >> OK, if 70590bis was entirely datastore agnostic, then there would need to be >> a description of how YANG applies to a particular set of datastores (in >> particular the config: true|false statement), and which datastores are >> validated. Would that go in the revised > > I don't think that config true/false is necessarily tied to a particular set > of datastores, it can be generalized to RW/RO. > >> datastores architecture or somewhere else? It wouldn't make sense to have >> to repeat this for every network configuration protocol. > > I think the structure of datastores and validation workflow could be supplied > as extra info, see item #3 near the end of this message: > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg17673.html > > Lada > >> >> Thanks, >> Rob >> >> >>> >>> Lada >>> >>>> 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 >>> -- >>> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs >>> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> . > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
