Re: [I2rs-proto-dt] [i2rs] inteirm 10/7/20

Juergen: 

You make an excellent point on whether the WG should just select RESTCONF
instead of both RESTCONF and NETCONF.   I will start a discussion thread
later today on this point. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 1:51 PM
To: Andy Bierman
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; i2rs-proto-dt@ietf.org; Susan Hares
Subject: Re: [i2rs] inteirm 10/7/20

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 09:55:31AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < 
> j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:13:03PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
> > > The 10/7/2015 interim discussed the ephemeral portion of the 
> > > protocol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1)      Ephemeral state is not unique to zI2RS
> > >
> > > 2)      The ephemeral datastore is a datastore holds
> > >
> > > configuration that is intended to not survive a reboot.
> > >
> >
> > Configuration as YANG config true or a subset thereof?
> >
> 
> 
> config=true nodes only.

good

> Some way is needed to specify I2RS conformance for a given YANG 
> module, unless every persistent config leaf is expected to also be 
> supported as ephemeral data.
>
> If not, a YANG "ephemeral-stmt" is probably needed, since config=true 
> is insufficient to support I2RS conformance.

One question is whether this needs to be inline in the data model or not. If
conformance is the goal, then you know what having things defined inline has
limits. If we would address conformance in more general terms, perhaps I2RS
conformance falls out as a special case.

> One ephemeral datastore.
> No client panes.  That was to support caching, but the architecture 
> forbids caching, so that was taken out.
> 
> One ephemeral pane that overrides the running datastore

good

> > Identities? I assume you mean schema nodes, do you?  Adding by 
> > defining an YANG extension such as i2rs:ephemeral true? How does 
> > such an i2rs:ephemeral true interplay with config true/false? What 
> > about contexts for must/when expressions? Or is the idea to settle 
> > on RESTCONF and to work with YANG patch?
> >
> 
> I think a real keyword is needed not an extension.
> Otherwise YANG groupings cannot be utilized w/ statements that are 
> refined in the uses-stmt to set the ephemeral flag.

I fail to understand the groupings argument.

> NETCONF has no edit ordering or ability to return a partial error. IMO 
> only RESTCONF is needed.  Proposals to improve NETCONF editing to 
> support YANG Patch have already been made, and the WG had higher 
> priorities.
> I don't see why 2 protocols are needed instead of 1.

Perhaps the WG should discuss and decide. If all the WG wants is RESTCONF,
then we can simplify the discussion.

/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/>

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
i2rs@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs