"Susan Hares" <[email protected]> wrote: > Martin: > > Thank you for reviewing this option. In your opinion, how long do you think > the generic solution based on the draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores will > take to complete?
>From the authors' pow, we believe we have addressed all technical issues. The document needs to be split into protocol documents and a pure architecture document; this will happen after Chicago, if the WGs (NETCONF and NETMOD) agree. Of course, in the end the fate of the document is up to the WG to decide about... /martin > > Sue > > -----Original Message----- > From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Bjorklund > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 4:18 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [i2rs] modeling options for draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo > > Hi, > > So this new option 3 tries to fast-track what's being done in > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores. It has to solve many of the issues > that we face in that draft. It is not clear to me that this will produce a > result that (i) is completed much faster than that draft and (ii) is > guaranteed to be compatible with the solution in that draft. > > So I still think that option 1 is the best way forward (unless this draft > can wait for the generic solution in draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores). > > > /martin > > > Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > > > Speaking with the authors offline late last week, this discussion > > regarding OPTION-2 came up, and I mentioned again my concerns for CON > > 'c': > > > > c) unable to return the opstate value for any configured node > > > > ...to which the Xufeng suggested we take your idea to heart. > > Specifically, rather than augment <get-config>, let's look-ahead and > > use the opstate <get-data> RPC (including the 'origin' attribute) now. > > This way, <get-config> would return the configured value, while > > <get-data> could return the applied value, as well as the system > > generated/learned topology. So, as in previous fashion, I formally > > submit OPTION 3: > > > > > > > > OPTION 3: use new RPC <get-topo-data>, which is just like <get-data> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > This option defines a new RPC called <get-topo-data> that is fashioned > > directly after the <get-data> RPC from the revised-datastores draft. > > The RPC is renamed for fear of conflicting with any possible future > > changes that may occur to the planned <get-data> RPC. The > > <get-topo-data> RPC would take an optional 'with-origin-data' selector to > return the 'origin' attribute. > > > > PROS: > > a) does NOT break legacy clients (how we got here). > > b) ability to return the opstate value for any configured node. > > c) minimal rewrite of the module for revised-datastores solution. > > > > CONS: > > a) seems like a shady thing for an IETF module to do. > > b) would need to resolve other issues (e.g., how to support with > > RESTCONF), which makes the draft quite a bit more than just > > a module draft. > > c) requires server to support metadata, which is a relatively > > new concept and maybe not well supported by servers. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Kent > > > > > > > > -------ORIGINAL MESSAGE------- > > >>>> 2) It doesn't say anything about how the opstate data is stored on > the > > >>>> server. The opstate data is not modeled at all. This approach > > >>>> only defines a presentation-layer format for how opstate data can > > >>>> be returned via an RPC. The server is free to persist the opstate > > >>>> data anyway it wants, perhaps in an internal datastore called > > >>>> 'operational-state' or in an uber-datastore with the opstate data > > >>>> flagged with a datastore='oper-state' attribute. Regardless, it's > > >>>> an implementation detail, and the conceptual datastore model is > > >>>> preserved. > > >>> > > >>> You are essentially defining a new operation, but do it by > > >>> modifying the semantics of an existing one. I don't think this is > > >>> a good idea; it is better to define a new rpc. > > >> > > >> [Xufeng] Is using a new rpc is acceptable? If so, this could be a > > >> viable option. > > > > > >The draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores proposes a new rpc (maybe > > ><get-data>) to return data from the new operational-state datastore. > > >This is IMO better than adding opstate nodes to the reply to a > > ><get-config> request. > > > > > > Martin, > > > > Going back your earlier "better to define a new rpc" comment, I fail > > to see how this proposal is significantly different than RFC 6243. > > > > If not this, then the new RPC would be something like <get-config-ex> > > more than the planned <get-data>, as the goal is to return 'running' > > + "some opstate" (not just opstate). > > > > Still, in looking the the pros/cons, Option 1 appears stronger - only > > the authors don't like the idea of having to rewrite their models > > later... > > > > Kent > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > i2rs mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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
