Hi Amy,
Augmenting /interfaces-state/ directly isn't a problem. To be NMDA
compliant you would just augment /interfaces/ instead.
However, if you need to augment /interfaces-state/statistics/ then the
NMDA equivalent path will be /interfaces/statistics/ which obviously
would have a dependency on 7223bis.
Thanks,
Rob
On 20/07/2017 14:38, Yemin (Amy) wrote:
Hi Rob,
Unfortunately our draft augments /interfaces-state/statistics/ and
/interfaces-state/.
Here's the link of our draft, it will be very nice of you to review and give
further suggestion. Thanks.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang/?include_text=1
BR,
Amy
________________________________________
发件人: Robert Wilton [[email protected]]
发送时间: 2017年7月20日 20:32
收件人: Yemin (Amy); [email protected]; [email protected]; Martin Bjorklund; Kent
Watsen; Phil Shafer; [email protected]
主题: Re: [netmod] Migrating existing RFCs to NMDA
Hi Amy,
On 20/07/2017 14:09, Yemin (Amy) wrote:
It's very important to understand the time plan of the RFC bis.
We have a draft augmenting RFC7223(I believe we are not the only one), how
should we make the reference to RFC7223, or RFC7223bis?
If your module is just augmenting /interfaces/ and /interfaces-state/
then you have no direct dependency on RFC7223-bis.
The dependency only exists if your module is augmenting
/interfaces-state/statistics/, or any of the leaves in
/interfaces-state/ that don't also already exist in /interfaces/.
Will the RFC revision become a critical point to prevent progressing other
draft?
For some modules, potentially yes.
If you send me a pointer to your draft I can check whether you have any
dependency on RC7223bis or not.
But I totally agree that we need to update the updated drafts out quickly.
Thanks,
Rob
BR,
Amy
________________________________________
发件人: netmod [[email protected]] 代表 Robert Wilton [[email protected]]
发送时间: 2017年7月20日 17:39
收件人: [email protected]; [email protected]; Martin Bjorklund; Kent Watsen; Phil
Shafer; [email protected]
主题: Re: [netmod] Migrating existing RFCs to NMDA
Hi Adrian,
On 19/07/2017 17:11, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi,
Rob's useful presentation at
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-netmod-sessa-nmda-qa-01.pdf
listed a set of RFCs the "need to be updated".
"need to be updated" might have been a bit strong on my slides.
Really it was the list of RFCs that currently define "foo-state" trees.
For some of these drafts/modules it is a open question whether they get
updated.
My understanding of the current plan is:
RFC 6022: YANG Module for NETCONF Monitoring
[email protected] defines netconf-state
=> Unclear whether this needs to be immediately updated. If it does
then perhaps it could also be updated by draft-dsdt-nmda-netconf-00 (the
proposed protocol updates to NETCONF to support NMDA).
RFC 7223: A YANG Data Model for Interface Management
[email protected] defines interface-state
=> Martin Bjorklund to issue a bis version.
RFC 7277: A YANG Data Model for IP Management
[email protected] augments interface-state
=> Martin Bjorklund to issue a bis version.
RFC 7317: A YANG Data Model for System Management
[email protected] defines system-state
=> Model update looks to be trivial. Martin Bjorklund is one of the
authors, so hopefully he can help issue a updated version.
RFC 7895: YANG Module Library
[email protected] defines module-state
=> Kent Watsen already has an ID submitted to NETCONF, hopefully should
get WG adoption today.
RFC 8040: RESTCONF Protocol
[email protected]
[email protected] defines restconf-state
=> Unclear whether this needs to be immediately updated. If it does
then perhaps it could also be updated by
draft-dsdt-netconf-restconf-nmda-00 (the proposed protocol updates to
RESTCONF to support NMDA).
RFC 8022: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] defines and augments routing-state
=> Rob Wilton to help update models, will get from authors to republish,
Acee Lindem has indicated that he will help.
That's a good first step, but we seem to have run out of magic pixie dust here
in the depot, so we were wondering how that "need" is going to be converted to
action.
The NMDA authors will help achieve this.
Is there a plan? If not, what is the plan for a plan?
Assuming that the NETCONF, RESTCONF, and YANG libary NMDA updates are
supported for adoption by NETCONF WG, then I expect that we should
hopefully see draft versions of these updated models shortly (before the
next IETF, hopefully sooner than that)..
Thanks,
Rob
Thanks,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
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
