Hi, I am aware how YANG identities work. Let the market decide. Good enough.
Andy On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Phil Shafer <[email protected]> wrote: > Andy Bierman writes: > >The YANG definitions defined for NETCONF and RESTCONF operations do not > actually > >require the "real" datastore identities to be used by a server. > > The identities are defined in the YANG modules contained in the > NMDA draft (draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores). The protocol-specific > drafts (draft-dsdt-nmda-netconf and draft-dsdt-nmda-restconf) > describe protocols operations that use these identities, such as > the <source> parameter to <get-data>. The YANG library draft > (draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library) allows the server to indicate > which datastores are supported. > > >The server implementor > >has the freedom to replace all of the standard datastores with > proprietary definitions. > > Yes. The implementation can also choose not to support any > conventional datastores, allowing only, say, some new dynamic > datastore. Clients can learn this via YANG Library. > > In the end, I've confidence that the market place will give limited > success to servers that make funky and weird choices. We all > understand that most-common behaviors are most desirable, but forcing > a limit on such things is imho counter productive. > > >While this provides unlimited flexibility for the server, it also > provides unlimited > >complexity for the client. > > "unlimited"? > > >I think the existing :candidate, :writable-running, and :startup > capabilities cover > >the standard conventional datastores. > > Yes, these capabilities allow a client to know that a server supports > a datastore, but not what it can contain. It's not sufficient > information. The client needs the YANG library information to > have meaningful interaction with a server. > > >IMO the MUST be a new capability for the :operational datastore and the > >exact identityref and semantics for this datastore MUST be supported > >if the :operational:1.0 capability is advertised. > > What does a new capability give that YANG library does not? > > I don't follow the bit about "the exact identityref and semantics > for this datastore". Is your concern that I could make a follow-on > to <operational> that derives from the operational identity? > > >Both NETCONF and RESTCONF can list capabilities so both protocols can > advertise > >this capability URI. > > Same for YANG Library, right? > > Thanks, > Phil >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
