Hi,
One minor point that came up after the WG LC drafts had been posted is
that draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-02 explicitly references the path
"/yang-library/checksum", which means that the draft has a hard
dependency on this leaf always existing at this path in YANG library.
e.g. section 2 of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-02 contains:
The parameter "checksum" has the same value as the leaf
"/yang-library/checksum" from "ietf-yang-library". This parameter
MUST be present.
I think that it would be more flexible if the draft only referred to a
"YANG library checksum", and then have Yang Library bis formally define
the "YANG library checksum" term. This is to avoid the need to formally
update NMDA NETCONF draft, if the checksum path ever needs to be updated
in a future revision of YANG library.
To give an example of where we hit a similar issue, was in RFC 7950,
section 5.6.4, that has to be updated by
draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-02 because it explicitly references the
"/modules-state/module" list. Generally, I think that it would be good
to try and avoid these tight dependencies where possible, and try to
have them more loosely coupled.
E.g., text from 7950:
5.6.4 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-5.6.4>.
Announcing Conformance Information in NETCONF
This document defines the following mechanism for announcing
conformance information. Other mechanisms may be defined by future
specifications.
A NETCONF server MUST announce the modules it implements (see
Section 5.6.5 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-5.6.5>) by implementing the
YANG module "ietf-yang-library"
defined in [RFC7895 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7895>] and listing all
implemented modules in the
"/modules-state/module" list.
Requiring this text in draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-02:
This document updates [RFC7950], Section 5.6.4, to allow servers to
advertise the capability :yang-library:1.1 instead of :yang-
library:1.0, and to implement the subtree "/yang-library"
[I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis] instead of "/modules-state".
Thanks,
Rob
On 17/01/2018 18:39, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
The authors of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf and
draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf have posted updates to their drafts, and
believe that the documents are ready for LC.
This starts a 2 week LC on the two drafts that will end on January 31. Please
send your comments on this thread. Comments like “I have reviewed the documents
and believe they are ready for publication”, or “I have concerns about the
document because …” are welcome and useful for the authors.
Authors please indicate whether you are aware of any IPR for either of the
drafts.
Thanks.
Mahesh & Kent
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
