Hi Lou, I’m not advocating this #2. If you are going to rely on the revised data stores to obtain the information, you should go all the way to #3. For example, based on the control-plane-protocols in routing-cfg, we have separate top level containers for config state.
+--rw routing +--rw router-id? +--rw control-plane-protocols | +--rw control-plane-protocol* [type name] And: +— ro routing-state +--ro router-id? +--ro interfaces | +--ro interface* +--ro control-plane-protocols | +--ro control-plane-protocol* [type name] | +--ro type | +--ro name The control plane protocols augment these two lists separately. With #2, we leave the bifurcated structure and simply remove the data nodes that are not needed from the protocol state. Thanks, Acee On 7/12/16, 11:23 AM, "Lou Berger" <lber...@labn.net> wrote: >Acee, > > I personally was assuming we'd follow 3, but I'd like to understand >the implication of 2 as I'm not sure I really understand what you're >thinking here. Can you elaborate what you're thinking here? > >Thanks, > >Lou > >On 7/11/2016 12:36 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> While there are details to be worked out between the two data stores >> models (as indicated below), we now have implicit modeling of applied >> configuration. Existing models (both standard and draft) do not take >>this >> into consideration and, consequently, much of the state that is modeled >> explicitly represents the application configuration. For the RFC models, >> it probably doesn’t make much sense to redo them (unless they are being >> reworked for other reasons). This still leaves the existing WG draft >> models for which we have basically 3 options: >> >> 1. Do nothing - allow them proceed as they are with multiple ways of >> representing the applied configuration. This would provide visibility to >> the data independent of whether or not the device supported the revised >> data-stores supporting implicit retrieval of the applied configuration. >> 2. Prune out the redundant data nodes except those required as list >> keys, etc, since they can be obtained from the applied state data store. >> 3. #2 plus collapse the config (read-write) and system-state >> (read-only) into common containers. No more branching of >> <model-name>-config and <model-name>-state at the top level of the >>model. >> >> At I high-level, I feel these are the options. I’m not married to any >>one >> of these and the worse thing we could do is hold up progression of the >> existing YANG model drafts for another couple years while we debate the >> best course. Having said that, #3 is compelling since it will yield the >> most concise models and colocates the schema data nodes for any managed >> object. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee >> >> On 7/1/16, 12:36 PM, "netmod on behalf of Lou Berger" >> <netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of lber...@labn.net> wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> It's time to make a consensus call on this topic, so that we can all >>>move >>> on to defining a solution and aligning modules under development. Based >>> on the feedback received and the overall discussions on the topic, we >>>see >>> that there is consensus to follow a datastore based approach to >>> supporting operational state, i.e., direction 'B'. >>> >>> We will be asking the authors of [4] and [5] to review their proposals >>> (individual drafts) in Berlin, as well as to highlight differences and >>> suggest ways that their work could be consolidated. Of course, others >>>may >>> also choose to submit their own proposals. Given the importance of this >>> work, we will be looking to have active discussion on the topic both in >>> Berlin and on the list, with an objective of having a draft ready for >>> considerations as a WG document by the November IETF. >>> >>> We have reviewed this decision with our AD and the NetConf chairs and >>> have agreed to begin this work in NetMod. We certainly expect to >>> coordinate the work with the NetConf WG and re-home work as/if needed. >>> >>> Finally, we'd also like to thank all those who have contributed to this >>> discussion to date, from problem identification to proposed solutions, >>> and we look forward to your continued efforts to publish a standard >>> solution. >>> >>> Lou (and Kent) >>> >>> >>> On 6/7/2016 10:19 AM, Lou Berger wrote: >>>> All, >>>> >>>> We want to provide an update based on the off line discussions >>>> related to OpState Solutions that we have been having and solicit >>>> input from the WG. >>>> >>>> All authors of current solution drafts [1,2,3] together with those >>>> who helped conduct the solutions analysis* were invited to the these >>>> discussions -- with the objective of coming up with a single >>>> consolidated proposal to bring to the WG. (I/Lou acted as facilitator >>>> as Kent and Juergen were and are involved with the technical details.) >>>> >>>> The discussions have yielded some results but, unfortunately, >>>> not a single consolidated proposal as hoped, but rather two >>>> alternate directions -- and clearly we need to choose one: >>>> >>>> 1) Adopt the conventions for representing state/config >>>> based on Section 6 of [1]. >>>> >>>> From a model definition perspective, these conventions >>>> impact every model and every model writer. >>>> >>>> 2) Model OpState using a revised logical datastore definition >>>> as introduced in [4] and also covered in [5]. There is >>>> also a variant of this that we believe doesn't significantly >>>> impact this choice. >>>> >>>> With this approach, model definitions need no explicit >>>> changes to support applied configuration. >>>> >>>> >From a technology/WG standpoint, we believe an approach >>>> that doesn't impact every model written (i.e., #2) is superior. >>>> The counterpoint to this is that the conventions based >>>> approach (i.e., #1) is available today and being followed in >>>> OpenConfig defined models. >>>> >>>> We would like to hear opinions on this from the WG before >>>> declaring one of the following as the WG direction: >>>> >>>> A) models that wish to support applied configuration MUST >>>> follow conventions based on [1] -- and the WG needs to >>>> formalize these conventions. >>>> or >>>> B) no explicit support is required for models to support >>>> applied configuration -- and that the WG needs to >>>> formalize an opstate solution based on the approach >>>> discussed in [4] and [5]. >>>> >>>> We intend to close on this choice before Berlin. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Lou (and co-chairs) >>>> >>>> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01 >>>> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kwatsen-netmod-opstate-02 >>>> [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang-02 >>>> [4] >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-netmod-revised-datastores-00 >>>> [5] >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilton-netmod-refined-datastores-00 >>>> * - Chris H. and Acee L. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> netmod mailing list >>>> netmod@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> netmod mailing list >>> netmod@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> netmod@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod