Hi,
I am trying to complete rfc6087bis.
It has been held up waiting for this draft.
It is not clear to me how sec. 6.23 (Operational Data) needs to change.
Should the whole section be replaced by an informative reference to
this new draft?
Andy
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com
<mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Dear all,
Now that the new NETMOD and NETCONF charters have been approved,
it's time to think about the guidelines for YANG module authors.
The Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) addresses
the so-called "OpState problem" that has been the subject of much
discussion in the IETF. NMDA is still in development, and there
will be a transition period before NMDA solutions are universally
available.
The NETMOD Datastore Design Team and the Routing Yang
Architecture Design Team have worked with Alia and Benoit to
create initial guidelines for how the NMDA, as defined in
draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores/>,
impacts Yang models. The draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines/>
individual draft was foundational in helping creating those
guidelines.
If you have questions or concerns on how these guidelines should
apply to work of interest, please contact your WG Chairs or ADs.
It is our strong recommendation, as ADs with agreement from the
NETMOD WG Chairs, that models SHOULD move as quickly as possible
to the NMDA. The specific approach to be taken for models being
developed now and during the NMDA transition period should be
based on both the expected usage and the maturity of the data model.
1. New models and models that are not concerned with the
operational state of configuration information SHOULD immediately
be structured to be NMDA-compatible.
2. Models that require immediate support for "in use" and "system
created" information SHOULD be structured for NMDA. Then derived
versions of these models SHOULD be created, either by hand or
with suitable tools, that follow the current modeling strategies.
In some cases, the non-NMDA model may be an existing model and
not derived from the NMDA model. In all cases, the NMDA and
non-NMDA modules SHOULD be published in the same document, with
NMDA modules in the document main body and the non-NMDA modules
in an Appendix. The use of the non-NMDA model will allow
temporary bridging of the time period until NMDA implementations
are available. The non-NMDA module names should include ’-state’
appended.
We would like to thank Kent Watsen, Lou Berger, Rob Wilton,
Martin Bjorklund, Phil Shafer, Acee Lindem, Chris Hopps, Juergen
Schoenwaelder, and all others who helped develop these guidelines.
Regards,
Alia Atlas, Routing AD
Deborah Brungard, Routing AD
Alvaro Retana, Routing AD
Warren Kumari, Operations & Management AD
Benoit Claise, Operations & Management AD
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
