Hi Andy,
Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have reviewed draft-07 and my previous comments about NMDA have been
> addressed.
>
> This might be the most important sentence in the draft:
>
> sec. 5.3
>
> The datastore schema for <operational> MUST be a superset of the
> combined datastore schema used in all configuration datastores except
> that YANG nodes supported in a configuration datastore MAY be omitted
> from <operational> if a server is not able to accurately report them.
>
> The MUST implies that there is no need to design a YANG library that can
> support
> an implementation that violates this MUST (i.e., 1 schema tree for the
> super-set)
>
> The MAY is troublesome because it completely contradicts the conformance
> expressed
> in each YANG module supported by the server. Any data node without any
> if-feature-stmts is mandatory to implement.
This is required for transition purposes; a server that wants to
implement <operational> should not have to implement all modules at
once (as applied config).
> What about config=false subtrees within a config=true subtree?
> Can they be omitted from <operational> as well, or does the draft just
> intend to
> omit the operational value of config=true nodes? Should be specific.
The text says "nodes supported in a configuration datastore MAY be
omitted from <operational>". So it is implicit that it only applies
to config true nodes (since config false cannot be supported in a
config ds). How about:
OLD:
The datastore schema for <operational> MUST be a superset of the
combined datastore schema used in all configuration datastores except
that YANG nodes supported in a configuration datastore MAY be omitted
from <operational> if a server is not able to accurately report them.
NEW:
The datastore schema for <operational> MUST be a superset of the
combined datastore schema used in all configuration datastores
except that YANG "config true" nodes supported in a configuration
datastore MAY be omitted from <operational> if a server is not
able to accurately report them.
> Perhaps this draft does not need the MAY half of the sentence at all.
> The YANG library can specify that it is for conformance-reporting, not
> conformance-defining.
I think we should keep the MAY, since the YANG library has to be
designed to support this case.
/martin
>
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > This starts a second working group last call on
> > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores.
> >
> > As this is a 2nd LC that is focused on changes since the last LC, it
> > closes in *one* week. The working group last call ends on December 11.
> > Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
> >
> > At this point, we're most interested in verifying that previous comments
> > are addressed since the last call on the -04 rev of the draft was held.
> >
> > A summary of changes can be found at
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/DWtD12bGkBZabEygRfiwZfcnUU4
> >
> > A diff can be found at
> > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url1=draft-ietf-netmod-
> > revised-datastores-04.txt&url2=draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-07.txt
> >
> > Comments along the of: I have reviewed this version of the document and it
> > addresses my previous comments would be particularly helpful.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Netmod Chairs
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
