Andy Bierman writes: >The YANG definitions defined for NETCONF and RESTCONF operations do not >actually >require the "real" datastore identities to be used by a server.
The identities are defined in the YANG modules contained in the NMDA draft (draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores). The protocol-specific drafts (draft-dsdt-nmda-netconf and draft-dsdt-nmda-restconf) describe protocols operations that use these identities, such as the <source> parameter to <get-data>. The YANG library draft (draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library) allows the server to indicate which datastores are supported. >The server implementor >has the freedom to replace all of the standard datastores with proprietary >definitions. Yes. The implementation can also choose not to support any conventional datastores, allowing only, say, some new dynamic datastore. Clients can learn this via YANG Library. In the end, I've confidence that the market place will give limited success to servers that make funky and weird choices. We all understand that most-common behaviors are most desirable, but forcing a limit on such things is imho counter productive. >While this provides unlimited flexibility for the server, it also provides >unlimited >complexity for the client. "unlimited"? >I think the existing :candidate, :writable-running, and :startup capabilities >cover >the standard conventional datastores. Yes, these capabilities allow a client to know that a server supports a datastore, but not what it can contain. It's not sufficient information. The client needs the YANG library information to have meaningful interaction with a server. >IMO the MUST be a new capability for the :operational datastore and the >exact identityref and semantics for this datastore MUST be supported >if the :operational:1.0 capability is advertised. What does a new capability give that YANG library does not? I don't follow the bit about "the exact identityref and semantics for this datastore". Is your concern that I could make a follow-on to <operational> that derives from the operational identity? >Both NETCONF and RESTCONF can list capabilities so both protocols can advertise >this capability URI. Same for YANG Library, right? Thanks, Phil _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
