As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as i2RS protocol version 1.
Rather there are (or more accurately) will be, a package of features the
I2RS uses.
Asking of identification as a singular thing is an efficiency gain, but
not a requirement.
And masking the YANG version is an extremely undesirable side-effect.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/26/16 2:03 PM, Susan Hares wrote:
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
