Maybe a stupid question from my side (I'm not involved  in the NMDA work)
but is there some kind of consensus on what is proposed in this draft RFC or
are we miles away from such a consensus?  Since this is linked to how a
server has to handle state in the proposed merging of config and state under
one branch of the tree coming to a conclusion to me seems a requirement
since in the current implementation we just can't change a CT leaf in the
running DS by a value that is dynamically learned; in the NMDA approach that
would be possible as the operational DS contains both CT and CF leaves and
consequently a value as configured by the client can be overwritten by a
dynamically learned value as the value configured by the client remains
untouched in the running DS.  In the current implementation we would need to
model a CF leaf for this purpose.  At least that is how I have always
understood how it should be done.  As long as we do not have NDMA-based
server implementations we can't design and implement YANG models as proposed
in NMDA and its associated guidelines.

Regards, Bart

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 8:29 AM
To: Andy Bierman <[email protected]>
Cc: Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[email protected]>;
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [netmod] Questions on NMDA and "merged config and state"

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:06:23AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> 
> So you are saying there is no such thing as an NMDA-compliant server.
> There are protocols that may use specific datastores in various ways.
> Different protocols can have different behavior for the same datastore.
> Sounds very fun for client developers to figure out.
>

This is what I wrote:

  The protocols (with their various capabilities) expose different sets
  of datastores. I agree, the protocol documents should state clearly
  what is required to expose for the different protocols and what is
  optional to expose.

I did not write that different protocols can have different behavior for the
same datastore. I did not write that protocols may use specific datastores
in various ways.

/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/>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to