On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 8:12 AM Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Andy, > > > So you are planning new protocol versions with NBC changes as well? > > Yes. The NETCONF WG already kicked-off (sort of) the NETCONF-next and > RESTCONF-next efforts. The “plan” is to first publish a BC (backwards > compatible) version of the protocols to address low-hanging items, and then > an NBC versions to align with YANG-next. > > The question is if telling the client that it “running alone MAY be valid” > (was “MUST") can be in the BC update. Technically, there is no change to > the protocol on the wire, it’s only a change in how the client processing, > so maybe okay for NC1.2 / RC1.1? > > Changing the running config so it is split into 2 datastores makes operations more complicated. It doesn't actually work since YANG is hierarchical and has cross-references. IMO the only improvement needed is to add metadata to <running> so a client can better understand the system config and make edit requests that will not fail. Most deployment (90%?) is non-NMDA and it will probably stay that way. The developer focus is on data model deployment, not redoing the foundation. IMO people want YANG to be simpler and faster. I don't see how splitting config up into 2 datastores helps. > Kent // as a contributor > > Andy
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
