On 1/18/18 05:39, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > Ignoring process issues (not sure there are any), does it make sense > to publish a YANG module on the standards-track that is replaced by > something different 3-6 months later?
Perhaps I apply a different discount rate on the future particularly when timelines are involved. e.g. 3 months turns into a year and half pretty quickly. I think it's more a question of can we live with publishing the module now as is? Or can we not live with publishing it now? > Note that the NMDA contributors, after getting the overall design > done, move sequentially through the details of the documents; we first > focused on the NMDA document, which is in the RFC editor queue now. We > then focussed on the protocol extensions, which are now in WG last > call. Currently we are focusing on getting the new yang library > finalized. If no major isses pop up, the NMDA work may be complete by > the London IETF. Hence the 3 months lower bound mentioned above. > > /js > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 07:58:07AM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: >> Martin, >> >> I do agree with that at some point we will need to revisit scheme mount in >> the context of YL-bis, as there are different possible solutions for >> handling different datastores mounting different schema. I think Rob laid >> out the options pretty well here, ie doing it now or publishing as is and >> immediately working on the document that covers both. >> >> As I mentioned before I think this is as much a process issue as anything >> else - and have a planned call to discuss possible directions with chairs. I >> hope we can have some propose next steps on this to the working group in >> short order. >> >> Lou >> >> >> On January 18, 2018 2:57:23 AM Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote: >> >>> Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/17/2018 11:18 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>>> My main concern is actually the YL version. I strongly think SM need >>>>>>> to use YL-bis rather that the old YL, so that it can support NMDA. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Right now to SM is independent of Yang Library version and can run >>>>>> with either. >>>>> No this is not correct. SM uses a grouping from the old YANG >>>>> library (for the "use-schema" case), >>>> I thought YLbis was an updat e to UL (i.e., no name change) as such SM >>>> can include either. >>> >>> The old "modules-state" structure is deprecated, and a new structure >>> that allows multiple datastores is defined. Note that YLbis can be >>> used by both NMDA-capabale and non-NMDA-capabale servers. >>> >>>>> and talks about mounting >>>>> "modules-state" ("inline" case). >>>> In informative descriptions only. Certainly these can be changed to >>>> allow for YL-bis if need be. >>>> >>>>>> I certainly would expect use of Yang Library bis and nmda >>>>>> to have advantages. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The implementation effort for supporting the new YL in clients and >>>>>>> servers is minimal, esp. when compared to the efforts involved in >>>>>>> supporting SM. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adding an indirection is (for me) less important, but it has the >>>>>>> benefit of solving the two issues (a) and (b) above, and I haven't >>>>>>> seen any technical problem with it. >>>>>>> >>>>>> (A) has implementation implications and those participating in the >>>>>> discussion at the time expressed as not being worth the cost. >>>>>> I don't believe b was seen as a significant issue either. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you have any technical concerns with using an annotation as an >>>>>>> indirection? >>>>>>> >>>>>> The technicsl issue I have with the approaches the same one that was >>>>>> raised when debated previously, ie the implementation overhead of >>>>>> requiring inline schemas to be available at the top level. >>>>> Ok. I'm ok with keeping the inline case as it is. However, I think >>>>> we need to use the new YL-bis, so that we can support the NMDA. >>>> Given that NMDA support is not yet fully defined, we're still in the >>>> transition period where support for both NMDA and non-NMDA >>>> implementations need to be considered. Rob presented some options >>>> earlier in the thread that I think captures this. >>> >>> Again, note that YLbis supports both NMDA and non-NMDA servers. >>> >>> Also note that YLbis is just a different read-only monitoring >>> structure. Given an implementation that supports the old YL, it is >>> trivial to add support for YLbis (especially compared to the more than >>> non-trivial amount of work required to support schema mount...). >>> >>> >>> /martin >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> netmod@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod