"t.petch" <ie...@btconnect.com> writes: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ladislav Lhotka" <lho...@nic.cz> > To: "Robert Wilton" <rwil...@cisco.com> > Cc: <netmod@ietf.org> > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 2:32 PM >> >> > On 17 Mar 2017, at 15:04, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: >> > >> > Would 7950bis be allowed to have a normative reference to an > Informational RFC that defined the YANG datastores? >> >> My idea is that 7950bis should be made independent of any particular > set of datastores, so such a normative reference shouldn't be needed. > > Lada > > You say 'set of datastores' which I would agree with but I would propose > that the concept of a datastore, which could be a different term, just > semantically equivalent to that of 'datastore', is still needed for > validation. The scope of validation is a closed set of data and the > current term for that is datastore (as opposed to module, model or any > other unit of data)..
Agreed, but I would suggest "data tree" as the subject of validation. Something more general than datastore is probably needed because already in RFC 7950 the tree that is validated sometimes consists of multiple (two) datastores and/or payloads of operations or notifications. Lada > > Tom Petch > > > > > > >> >> Lada >> >> > >> > If we did a 7950bis document (and it isn't clear that one is > actually required to support the revised datastores draft) then does > that mean we would also need to have a new version of YANG? >> > >> > That would potentially seem like a backwards step. Also what would > it mean for an implementation that is aware of the new datastores but is > using a mix of YANG modules with different versions? >> > >> > I don't understand why the revised datastores draft should not be > standards track once the various appendices have been moved out, noting > that they are really only in the one draft at this stage because it > seemed like that would make it easier for folks to review and comment > on. >> > >> > Is the only issue here which WG the draft is being worked on? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Rob >> > >> > >> > On 17/03/2017 13:22, Mehmet Ersue wrote: >> >> I think YANG identities should be standardized with 7950bis. >> >> >> >> Mehmet >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lber...@labn.net] >> >>> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 12:28 PM >> >>> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>; >> >>> Mehmet Ersue <mer...@gmail.com> >> >>> Cc: 'Kent Watsen' <kwat...@juniper.net>; netmod@ietf.org >> >>> Subject: Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal >> >>> >> >>> Juergen, >> >>> >> >>> Thank you for the input. I think your point highlights how the > technical >> >>> contents of a document drives the intended status of a document. >> >>> >> >>> Lou >> >>> >> >>> PS as a reminder to all, intended status of documents is *not* > typically >> >>> included in charters and are not included in the distributed > version. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On March 16, 2017 2:44:53 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder >> >>> <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 02:50:06PM +0100, Mehmet Ersue wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> That said different people including Netconf WG co-chairs think > the DS >> >>>>> concept document is Informational in nature and should be > published as >> >>> an >> >>>>> Informational concept to be used in and adopted for the needs in >> >> diverse >> >>>>> protocol WGs. This is as I think also important to avoid an > overlapping >> >>>>> between NETCONF and NETMOD charters. >> >>>> The current datastore draft includes concrete YANG idenity > definitions >> >>>> for datastores and origins and these definitions better be > standards >> >>>> track. >> >>>> >> >>>> /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/> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> >> -- >> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs >> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> netmod@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
