Robert Wilton <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Alex, > > I see no real advantages to putting this directly in YANG library bis, > but I think that augmenting the YANG library bis structure is just fine > (in the same way that the latest version of schema mount has proposed to > do). > > Generally, I think that it is good that NETCONF/YANG is built up of > fairly loosely coupled components. E.g. implementations can choose > which subset of features are required for their particular circumstances > (e.g. protocol, encoding, schema mount, YANG push, with-defaults, etc). > If over time it becomes clear that it is critical for good interop that > particular features must always be supported then we can define NETCONF > 2.0 or 3.0 that mandates that a particular set of technologies must be > implemented to meet the standard. > > The added bonus of having these components loosely coupled is that they > can be improved and refined independently, potentially allowing IETF to > move a bit quicker advancing the technologies. > > Finally, even if there is common meta-data structure that is shared by > multiple features, that still doesn't mean that it has to go in the base > YANG library spec, that can still just be shared common extension.
+1 Lada > > Thanks, > Rob > > > On 13/02/2018 21:25, Alexander Clemm wrote: >> My proposal is to add this to the YANG data model. I think this logically >> belongs to YANG library which is why I would like to see it there. I also >> think it will be useful to many implementations. All, probably not, but >> they have also survived without YANG library for a while:-) Of course, it is >> always possible to write another draft or do a bisbis. >> Cheers >> --- Alex >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 12:29 PM >>> To: Alexander Clemm <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>; NETCONF WG >>> <[email protected]>; NETMOD WG <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC on YANG Library (bis) >>> >>> I must have missed your actionable proposal that is relevant for _all_ >>> NETCONF >>> and RESTCONF implementations. >>> >>> YANG data models are extensible so lets use that. >>> >>> /js >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 07:58:37PM +0000, Alexander Clemm wrote: >>>> Well, we need a general solution for that. YANG-push is just one use case. >>> There are other cases where there will be "metadata" (that does not pertain >>> to >>> instance data) and capabilities that clients want to discover. YANG >>> library (in >>> itself providing "metadata" about what a server supports and is capable of) >>> is an >>> excellent place to maintain this information. It also provides the >>> opportunity to >>> be systemic about it, as opposed to requiring everyone to define their own >>> little >>> custom extensions. >>>> --- Alex >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder >>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 11:48 AM >>>>> To: Alexander Clemm <[email protected]> >>>>> Cc: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>; NETCONF WG >>>>> <[email protected]>; NETMOD WG <[email protected]> >>>>> Subject: Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC on YANG Library (bis) >>>>> >>>>> Alexander, >>>>> >>>>> I disagree. This YANG Library is mandatory for all implementations; >>>>> what you talk about seems to concern only implementations that >>>>> support YANG push. Hence, this is an extension that should go in its own >>> module. >>>>> /js >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 07:38:31PM +0000, Alexander Clemm wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have taken a look at this document. >>>>>> >>>>>> My main comment is that one aspect that is missing, that I believe >>>>>> should be >>>>> added, concerns the inclusion of certain metadata about the modules. >>>>> Specifically, in the context of YANG-Push we had a discussion about >>>>> being able to mark nodes that are notifiable on change. This is >>>>> just one particular use case of a more general issue; in YANG-Push >>>>> after much debate the conclusion was for now to simply make >>>>> implementors aware of this issue and advise that a solution to this >>>>> must be provided, with the clear understanding that eventually a standard >>> solution should be defined. >>>>>> Since the goal of YANG-Library is to allow clients to find out >>>>>> what is actually >>>>> supported on a given server, this is the right place to keep this >>>>> information. One possible way to address this would be, for a given >>>>> module, to maintain a list of "meta-info", with a key "meta-tag", >>>>> and a list with references to the nodes to which the metadata >>>>> applies. In the case of notifiable-on-change, you would have a list >>>>> with one entry "notifiable-on-change", and then the list with the node >>> definitions to which this tag applies. >>>>>> Editorial nit: >>>>>> 2nd paragraph Introduction: informaton --> information >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> --- Alex >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Netconf [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>>>>> Mahesh Jethanandani >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 11:00 AM >>>>>> To: NETCONF WG <[email protected]> >>>>>> Cc: NETMOD WG <[email protected]> >>>>>> Subject: [Netconf] LC on YANG Library (bis) >>>>>> >>>>>> WG, >>>>>> >>>>>> The authors of rfc7895bis have indicated that they believe the >>>>>> document is >>>>> ready for LC[1]. >>>>>> This starts a two week LC on the >>>>>> draft<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf- >>>>> netconf-rfc7895bis-04>. The LC will end on February 15. >>>>>> Please send your comments on this thread. Reviews of the document, >>>>>> and >>>>> statement of support are particularly helpful to the authors. If you >>>>> have concerns about the document, please state those too. >>>>>> Authors please indicate if you are aware of any IPR on the document. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg13980.htm >>>>>> l >>>>>> >>>>>> Mahesh & Kent >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> netmod mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH >>>>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany >>>>> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> >>> -- >>> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH >>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany >>> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://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 Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
