Kent and Lada: <individual contributor hat on> I agree that we need some parameters in yang. I agree with version 1 of the revised datastores.
In my proposal regarding I2RS Yang, I tried to start suggesting some parameters for control plane datastores, and ephemeral control plane datastores. In this I also suggest a "validation" key word that will provide additional validation sequences for the control plane datastores. There may be better ways to do this in Yang, but I hope it is a start. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-i2nsf-capability-yang/ If we start with this yang, I thought it made the capabilities easier to define for NETCONF and RESTCONF. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-netconf-i2rs-netconf/ I welcome any change or fixes. I tried to make things concrete so it would help the discussion. Sue -----Original Message----- From: netmod [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:40 AM To: Ladislav Lhotka; Robert Wilton Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal 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? 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 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
