Joel: <wg chair hat off>
This requirement is not about forking I2RS protocol off the NETCONF/RESTCONF stream. My requirement is to have a parameter in some NETCONF model (? Extension to draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library) that that indicates I2RS protocol version 1 (with all its requirements) are supported (true/false). Otherwise, as a developer of an implementation - you must go to check all the different types of netconf. It would seem to me that causing the implementation to check all of the specific NETCONF and model support would be much more work that indicating a I2RS protocol version support. I think your mechanism is a lot more work for the I2RS client querying 1 variable. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 1:42 PM To: Susan Hares; [email protected] Subject: Re: [i2rs] draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-07.txt - protocol identification First, I would prefer that we express our requirements, and let the protocol developers determine what is the best way of meeting those requirements. That is what I want when I receive requirements, so I try to meet that standard when I send them. As for a proposed mechanism, I would again separate pieces. The I12RS Client needs to know if certain capabilities are present. These include support for specific models (already present in netConf), support for specific additional capabilities such as Ephemeral handling, and support for the attribution mechanisms. There may be others. Depending upon how these needs are met, there are multiple ways to indicate these capabilities within the NetConf and YANG framework. Further, and part of the reason for my concerns, is that I would want to know whether the I2RS agent is supporting YANG 1.0, YANG 1.1, or a future YANG 1.2 or 2.0. Without having to change the I2RS "protocol" indication. If we were really in a situation where I2RS support was a fork from the base protocols, then a protocol version would be appropriate. That situation would be extremely unfortunate. I believe we are avoiding that. yours, Joel On 5/26/16 12:55 PM, Susan Hares wrote: > Joel: > > I2RS protocol as a re-use protocol is specifying a set of changes to > NETCONF or RESTCONF. We have two ways it can be identified: > > 1) Implementations can "value" (I2RS protocol version) to query that > indicates the NETCONF implementation or the RESTCONF implementation > provides all the features requested by I2RS protocol requirements. > > 2) Implementations query the NETCONF implementation or the RESTCONF > implementation supports all the features required for the I2RS protocol. > > It seemed reasonable to me to specify that NETCONF or RESTCONF set-up > a value that implementations can query to indicate it supports I2RS > protocol requirements. > > Did you have a better way to do this? > > Sue > > -----Original Message----- > From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel Halpern > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 10:04 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [i2rs] draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-07.txt - protocol > identification > > Mostly, this looks very good. > > I find it odd and overspecified that the first requirement for netConf > and Restconf is described as indicating I2RS support via the protocol version. > > It seems unlikely that the protocol version is the right way to > represent this. And it seems that the I2RS WG should specify the > need, not the mechanism used to represent it. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 5/25/16 9:39 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Interface to the Routing System of >> the > IETF. >> >> Title : I2RS Ephemeral State Requirements >> Authors : Jeff Haas >> Susan Hares >> Filename : draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-07.txt >> Pages : 14 >> Date : 2016-05-25 >> >> Abstract: >> This document covers requests to the NETMOD and NETCONF Working >> Groups for functionality to support the ephemeral state requirements >> to implement the I2RS architecture. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state/ >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-07 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-07 >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at > tools.ietf.org. >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I-D-Announce mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >> > I2RS > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
