Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > On Thu, 2017-12-21 at 14:25 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> writes: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > If this is about schema or data nodes, I suggest to state it > > > explicitly: > > > > > > ... "config true" schema/data nodes ... > > > > Yes, the new text uses "configuration data nodes". > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Shouldn't the server add corresponding deviations to the schema for > > > <operational> in this case? > > > > We wanted to explicitly support the case that a server doesn't (yet) > > implement a given module with config nodes in operational. But maybe > > But with the new schema of YANG library, say Alt B, such a server can simply > omit this module from the schema of <operational>, right?
Right; note that this document specifies the requirements, and yang library is designed accordingly. /martin > > Lada > > > we should design for the future and remove the MAY half of the > > sentence, as suggested above, and let such servers use deviations in > > this case. > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lada > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /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/DWtD12bGkBZabEygRfiwZfcnUU > > 4 > > > >> > > > > >> > 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 > > > > > > -- > > > Ladislav Lhotka > > > Head, CZ.NIC Labs > > > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > > > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka > Head, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
