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

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.
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.

> > 3)      The ephemeral datastore is never locked.
> >
> > 4)      I2RS is using a 2 panes of glass mechanisms
> >
> > Pane 1: normal configuration
> >
> > Pane 2:  ephemeral state
> >
> >
> >
> >                 The I2RS agent and configuration software on
> >
> >               the node  must handle this complexity.
>
> So is there one ephemeral datastore or are there multiple?  Some
> slides say one per client, others seem to indicate one for all
> clients.
>
>

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

> >
> > 5)      The key word "ephemeral" can be used to identify
> >
> > Identities which are ephemeral in data models.
> >
> > Does anyone have any concerns with adding this to
> > Yang?
>
> 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.

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.

>
> /js
>
>

Andy

> --
> 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
>