Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 inactive

Hi Tom, Regarding the issue on the definition of inactive configuration, in the end we think that we don't need to define it for the following reasons: 1) Juergen's new objectives contains a brief description of inactive configuration (without defining it). 2) Inactive has been removed from

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 duplicaiton

er...@labn.net> To: "t.petch" <ie...@btconnect.com>; "netmod WG" <netmod@ietf.org> Cc: <netmod-cha...@ietf.org>; <draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datasto...@ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 5:56 PM Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 guessing

The authors have discussed this issue (https://github.com/netmod-wg/datastore-dt/issues/15), and their proposal is to close this with no change to the NMDA draft with the following justifications: 1) This assumption is that longer term all models would become NMDA compliant and over time it

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

Sounds great. Thank you for the update. Lou On September 20, 2017 11:49:18 AM Robert Wilton wrote: Hi Lou, We are using github to track the issues: https://github.com/netmod-wg/datastore-dt/issues We think that all issues have been entered.  The authors have discussed

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

Hi Lou, We are using github to track the issues: https://github.com/netmod-wg/datastore-dt/issues We think that all issues have been entered.  The authors have discussed them today and will send proposed resolutions to the alias. Thanks, Rob On 18/09/2017 14:33, Lou Berger wrote: All,

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

There have been no objections to proposed changes (1), (3) and (4) so we will apply those to the draft. (2) is still awaiting further comment from the latest updated text that I sent yesterday. Thanks, Rob On 11/09/2017 16:22, Robert Wilton wrote: As one of the authors, I would like to

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates

- Original Message - From: "Martin Bjorklund" Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 8:58 AM > "t.petch" wrote: > > - Original Message - > > From: "Martin Bjorklund" > > Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 2:41 PM > > > > > Andy

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 inactive

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:14:55AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > > > On 17/09/2017 21:21, t.petch wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" > > >

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

All,     The LC is closed.  There are clearly some issues to discuss and resolve before this document can be submitted for publications.  Given the issues raised, as well as the good on-list discussion, I'd like to ask the authors to formally track all issues raised and their resolutions.  We

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 inactive

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:14:55AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 17/09/2017 21:21, t.petch wrote: > > - Original Message - > > From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" > > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 6:09 PM > > > > > > > Two comments: > > > > >

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 inactive

On 17/09/2017 21:21, t.petch wrote: - Original Message - From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 6:09 PM Two comments: - Obviously, inactive can be in and I would not rule out that inactive configuration can be in

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates

"t.petch" wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Martin Bjorklund" > Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 2:41 PM > > > Andy Bierman wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > >

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates

- Original Message - From: "Martin Bjorklund" Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 2:41 PM > Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 inactive

- Original Message - From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 6:09 PM > Two comments: > > - Obviously, inactive can be in and I would not rule out > that inactive configuration can be in any other or future >

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 3:14 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 02:56:45AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > Either way, the new YANG rules seem half-baked and not ready > > for standardization. > > OK. Then please tell us where you

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 02:56:45AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > Either way, the new YANG rules seem half-baked and not ready > for standardization. OK. Then please tell us where you see problems. The usage of must vs MUST does not seem to be the issue. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:07:58PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I strongly agree with Tom that the current draft is an update to RFC > 7950. > > I also strongly disagree with the

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:07:58PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > I strongly agree with Tom that the current draft is an update to RFC 7950. > I also strongly disagree with the decision to omit RFC 2119 in a standards > track document. IMO RFC 2119 terms need to be used in normative text, >

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 inactive

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Phil Shafer wrote: > Andy Bierman writes: > >But this means if any clients use the disable-node feature then all > clients > >need to know about the feature as well, or they will mistake these nodes > >for enabled nodes (i.e., plain

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 inactive

Andy Bierman writes: >But this means if any clients use the disable-node feature then all clients >need to know about the feature as well, or they will mistake these nodes >for enabled nodes (i.e., plain configuration according to the standard) . The alternative would be removing inactive config

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 inactive

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Phil Shafer wrote: > "t.petch" writes: > >Inactive appears a dozen times but is not defined, except in the course > >of those appearances it effectively is, but is sometimes 'inactive', > >sometimes 'inactive configuration', sometimes 'inactive

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates

Hi, I strongly agree with Tom that the current draft is an update to RFC 7950. I also strongly disagree with the decision to omit RFC 2119 in a standards track document. IMO RFC 2119 terms need to be used in normative text, especially when dealing with XPath and YANG compiler behavior. Andy

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 inactive

"t.petch" writes: >Inactive appears a dozen times but is not defined, except in the course >of those appearances it effectively is, but is sometimes 'inactive', >sometimes 'inactive configuration', sometimes 'inactive data'. Agree. Consistent terms are good things. >I would find it clearer if

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 inactive

Two comments: - Obviously, inactive can be in and I would not rule out that inactive configuration can be in any other or future configuration datastores. - Whether protocols support inactive or not does not belong into a definition of what inactive configuration is. The same for

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 inactive

Inactive appears a dozen times but is not defined, except in the course of those appearances it effectively is, but is sometimes 'inactive', sometimes 'inactive configuration', sometimes 'inactive data'. I would find it clearer if the term was used consistently and if there was an explicit

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:19:42PM +0100, t.petch wrote: > This I-D updates RFC7950, since it changes the XPath context that YANG > uses, yet there is no mention of 'Updates' I think the editors of the document reached the conclusion that the xpath context rules stated in section 5.1. are the

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 guessing

Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > t.petch píše v Pá 15. 09. 2017 v 12:29 +0100: > > Looking at a YANG module in future, how can I tell whether or not it is > > written to work with revised datastores? > > Ideally, this ought to be a wrong question. A YANG module (or rather a YANG > data >

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 guessing

t.petch píše v Pá 15. 09. 2017 v 12:29 +0100: > Looking at a YANG module in future, how can I tell whether or not it is > written to work with revised datastores? Ideally, this ought to be a wrong question. A YANG module (or rather a YANG data model) should specify constraints for a data tree, no

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 guessing

Looking at a YANG module in future, how can I tell whether or not it is written to work with revised datastores? If the module is written assuming revised datastores and the environment does not support this in some regard, then we have a management malfunction, which could be disastrous. I

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates

: "Lou Berger" <lber...@labn.net> To: "netmod WG" <netmod@ietf.org> Cc: <netmod-cha...@ietf.org>; <draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datasto...@ietf.org> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 10:02 PM Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datas

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 duplicaiton

> > > > Instead of two YANG data nodes there is one data node in two datastores, > > a more elegant and simpler solution to the problem. > > > > Tom Petch ----- Original Message - From: "Lou Berger" <lber...@labn.net> To: "t.petch" <ie

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

Phil Shafer writes: > + > +The implication of the existence of templating mechanisms is that > + is now explicitly allowed to be invalid, since the > +templating mechanism may be supplying additional data that satisfies > +constraints that may be satisfied by itself. > +

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 duplicaiton

> I believe that text such as this would make the I-D much easier to > follow. As it stands, you have to read between the lines and speculate. Tom,     Thank you for the comments.  Do you have a specific change in mind, or could your propose text, that would address this? Thanks, Lou On

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 duplicaiton

I think that in one respect, perhaps the key respect, this I-D fails to state the obvious (or at least what is likely obvious to those who have been at this for a while:-). The problem that is hinted at but never explicitly stated is that data objects can appear both as configuration and as

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:09:57PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > There are several possible pitfalls here since (i) can > > change anytime, (ii) it might not be easy/possible to obtain a > > consistent snapshot of , and (iii) dynamic datastores can > > provide values that "overwrite" and

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

On 11/09/2017 18:27, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 05:12:42PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: The contents of are related to the 'config true' subset of , such that a client can determine to what extent the intended configuration is currently applied by checking

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

On 11/09/2017 18:31, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Kent Watsen wrote: As an author, I believe the draft is ready for publication. Regarding Robert's editorial suggestions: 1) how moving "all" like this? (i.e., must have same modules, deviations, etc.) - datastores that

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

Kent Watsen wrote: > As an author, I believe the draft is ready for publication. > > Regarding Robert's editorial suggestions: > > 1) how moving "all" like this? (i.e., must have same modules, > deviations, etc.) > - datastores that all share exactly the same schema,

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 05:12:42PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > >The contents of are related to the 'config true' >subset of , such that a client can determine to what >extent the intended configuration is currently applied by checking >whether the contents of also appear in . >

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

As an author, I believe the draft is ready for publication. Regarding Robert's editorial suggestions: 1) how moving "all" like this? (i.e., must have same modules, deviations, etc.) - datastores that all share exactly the same schema, allowing data to be copied + datastores that share

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

As one of the authors, I would like to see a few minor editorial updates, described below.  Otherwise I believe that the document is ready for publication. Proposed changes: 1. I think that the document could further emphasis that the schema for all the conventional datastores must be the

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

I believe the document is ready for publication. /js On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:02:24PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: > All, > > This starts a two week working group last call on > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04. > > The working group last call ends on September 17. > Please send your

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

Hi, As one of the authors of this document, I believe it is ready for publication. /martin Lou Berger wrote: > All, > > This starts a two week working group last call on > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04. > > The working group last call ends on September 17. >

[netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04

All, This starts a two week working group last call on draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04. The working group last call ends on September 17. Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list. Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication",