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