> On Jul 15, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > On 7/15/16, 10:23 AM, "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at > Cisco)" <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> >> >>> On 15/07/2016 15:16, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >>> >>>> On 7/14/16, 4:00 PM, "Kent Watsen" <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> [This thread took on a life of its own, so I’m replying to this email >>>> from two days ago] >>>> I had assumed the plan/recommendation would be: >>>> - for works-in-progress, to evaluate if their models can be improved. >>>> - for existing RFCs, do nothing (though we may want to consider >>>> RFC7223). >>>> >>>> By “if their models can be improved” in the above, I’m implying that >>>> having a top-level -state branch may still be the best solution for >>>> some >>>> models. It’s up to each model designer to decide the best approach for >>>> their models. >>>> >>>> Makes sense? >>> I think the statement “if their models can be improved” leaves too much >>> subjectivity in the guideline. Either we are going to avail the revised >>> data store model to avoid duplication of YANG schema nodes or we are >>> going >>> to leverage the new data stores solely to meet the intended/applied >>> config >>> requirement. If it is the latter and a good portion of the network >>> devices >>> will not support, then I would agree. >> Devices can still leverage the new operational state datastore (and >> hence allow foo and foo-state to be merged) without having to supporting >> an intended/applied configuration split (i.e. they just treat applied = >> intended). > > Right - but then the applied configuration wouldn’t be available for the > cases where it does differ from intended configuration. > >> >> I'm keen to get the models simpler were possible because I think that >> will help with their longevity and ease of use. > > For the record, I agree. However, reaching consensus will be difficult. > > Thanks, > Acee
Indeed. There are enough people wanting to do this both ways that it will be difficult at best. tom > > > >> >> Thanks, >> Rob >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Kent // as a contributor >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/12/16, 11:23 AM, "netmod on behalf of Lou Berger" >>>> <netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of 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-0 >>>>>>> 0 >>>>>>> [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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
