Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > Martin, > Thanks for the response. See below. > > On 2/8/2016 1:57 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote:
[...] > >> I think this is a question of perspective. I get that from a protocol > >> standpoint, and possibly even language standpoint, why this discussion > >> can be considered unneeded complexity. I wouldn't even be surprised if > >> the open config folks agreed with you, as the core of their solution > >> really doesn't need changes to the underlying protocol or language. > >> > >> As I see it, there are three options on the table to address the core > >> issue of OpState: > >> > >> 1. Do nothing in Netconf / restconf or yang, and leave it to model > >> conventions = openconfig draft > >> > >> 2. Extend Netconf / restconf , but not yang or models = Kent's draft > >> > >> 3. Use a language / tools based approach to augment models and > >> automatically produce a form of option 1 style convention changes, > >> without model definition restrictions. ~= Rob's draft (I'll assume > >> changes previously discussed on list) > >> > >> WRT 1: We've heard from the model development community, i.e. model > >> writers, that 1 is doable but painful and easily done incorrectly. It > >> also impacts other SDOs, i.e. non ietf model writers. > >> > >> WRT 2: We heard from the user community, at least a small number of > >> representatives, that 2 alone doesn't address their needs. > > We have heard from the open config people that their proprietary > > protocol does not support datastores, but no more details. > > I think I've heard users say what they believe is true from their > perspective and context. I've heard others say we disagree (or stronger > statements.) > > >> But it's > >> also clear that some in the WG would prefer Option 2 (and most/all of > >> these are its coauthors.) > > This was the preferred solution of the room in Yokohama. 2 of the 4 > > authors were present. > > sure. And we know that the IETF consensus is not judged by who is in > the room. It is of course useful information to the WG and the chairs. You wrote "most/all of [those who prefer option 2] are its coauthors". My observation was that just 2 of the coauthors were in the room, and still this was the preferred solution; thus I think that your statement that I quoted is incorrect. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
