> On 5 Dec 2016, at 10:38, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 10:18:32AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >>> On 2 Dec 2016, at 22:26, Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> This is start of a two week poll on making >>> draft-nmdsdt-netmod-revised-datastores-00 a NetMod working group >>> document. This document is unusual in that WG last call will be jointly >>> held in both the NetConf and NetMod WGs, while adoption and day-to-day >>> processing >>> will take place in NetMod. >> >> There seems to be no impact on YANG syntax or semantics - the one mentioned >> in sec. 6.3 is in fact protocol stuff that doesn't belong to the definition >> of YANG the language. Therefore, this work has nothing to do with data >> modelling and in fact belongs to the NETCONF WG. This would also solve the >> indicated WG sch > izophrenia that should IMO be avoided in any case. > > I disagree that the datastore model is a protocol specific aspect. I > consider datastores an architectural component binding data models and > protocols together. In fact, the 'traditional' datastore model
I would agree with this if datastores were a general concept in YANG, but the revised-datastores draft explicitly introduces the "intended" and "applied" datastores that may be irrelevant to other protocols using YANG, and even needn't be used in all NETCONF implementations. I wouldn't call this "an architectural component" of YANG. If you are saying that it will have nontrivial impact on YANG, I would like to see it explained in sec. 6.3. Without this information I am quite reluctant to agree with the adoption. > together with the semantics of the <get/> operation caused us to write > data models in a very specific way. Since the number of protocols Yes, to work around a flaw in the NETCONF protocol. > transporting YANG defined data is growing, it is crucial that > architectural aspects are more clearly spelled out as such. (And the See above - architectural aspects need to be relevant to all protocols. > only architectural document we have so far was done in NETMOD. But at > the end, I find the discussion which WG is responsible somewhat > pointless, it is the same set of active technical contributors > anyway.) Mehmet rightly argued in Seoul that this work should be done in NETMOD WG because it will certainly have implications for the NETCONF protocol. It is thus understandable that NETCONF chairs want to exercise some control. > >> A useful thing to do in the NETMOD WG would be to remove all >> NETCONF-specific text from the YANG spec because whenever YANG is >> used outside the NETCONF context (I2RS, CORE), that text is mostly >> ignored anyway. > > If there is an opportunity to update all core documents together, we > may clean up some of this; so far, we never had such an opportunity. I don't know what you mean by all core documents. In my view, it would be sufficient to split RFC 7950 into two documents - the other one could be something like "Adapting NETCONF for use with YANG". If we don't do this, it is difficult to propose YANG for use with other protocols (as we did for I2RS) because we have to say: "You know, some parts of the YANG spec appear mandatory but they are irrelevant for you, so just ignore them". This was actually the case already for RESTCONF. Lada > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
