Re: [i2rs] Can I2RS focus on the "Over the Wire" data structure , not on how end point handle the "DataStore"?

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

Andy,

Agree with your suggested approach.

Linda

From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 9:05 PM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: Jeffrey Haas; Benoit Claise; [e-mail]; Juergen Schoenwaelder; Susan Hares; Alia Atlas
Subject: Re: Can I2RS focus on the "Over the Wire" data structure , not on how end point handle the "DataStore"?

Hi,

If your graphic advice means "the requirements are good enough, move on"
then I agree.

The datastore framework would be nice to have, but it is very close
to the implementation details.  It is also attempting to be a superset of all
"accepted" implementation choices.

By "on the wire" we usually mean a protocol specification.
IMO, all that is needed (for editing) is a set of RESTCONF extensions.
Some people want to describe the I2RS desired behavior wrt/ how it
interacts with the local config. (and many more features...)

Perhaps a good first step would be ephemeral data models that do not
interact with the local config at all.  I2RS is the only protocol of concern and the
highest priority client.  I2RS just needs to support read/write/notify of ephemeral data.
If this is not acceptable then be prepared to wait until all the framework stuff is settled
and standardized.


Andy




On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
IETF has been successful for past 20 years  in focusing on “Over the Wire” data structure.  It would be so much cleaner and straight forward if the YANG modules developed by I2RS  focusing on the “Over the Wire” data structure (and with NETMOD to focus on other aspects).
The “I2RS ephemeral State” has the needed description for the desired behavior  of the data received over I2RS interface. If we follow the IETF practice,  it is good enough.
Internal implementation framework is always controversial, hard to converge, usually ending up with a document (if completed) that is too big and difficult to read.

Providing some source code to show the internal implementation would be much more useful as a reference implementation.

The draft-schoenw-netmod-revised-datastores-00 is on the architectural framework for datastores as they are used by network management protocols. IMHO, how data stores are used are internal to the end points.

[http://www.urbanblisslife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Done-is-Better-Than-Perfect.jpg]<http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj50KWat4XNAhULxGMKHRhqDPQQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.urbanblissmedia.com%2Fentrepreneur-rules-done-is-better-than-perfect%2F&psig=AFQjCNGKEiPB2iHSqyBiF5609pd72H0L7w&ust=1464822503865777>

Linda Dunbar

From: i2rs [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 4:09 PM
To: Jeffrey Haas
Cc: Benoit Claise; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Juergen Schoenwaelder; Susan Hares; Alia Atlas
Subject: Re: [i2rs] I2RS Interim Meeting - June 1, 2016 - 10:00am - 11:00am - Topic: Ephemeral State Requirements

Hi,

I am not convinced the IETF can be forced to function as if it were
a dev-group in some corporation.  This is a volunteer organization so
usually solution proposals come from people who have created a solution
and they want the WG to standardize it.


Andy


On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Andy,

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:41:59AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> At some point the WG needs to agree on normative text instead of iterating
> on requirements forever.

IMO, it would be in I2RS's best interests if netconf/netmod provided drafts
in appropriately normative language covering I2RS requirements.  However,
we've been in a pathological cycle of:
"We don't understand, please give us requirements"
"We don't understand your requirements"
"You provided examples with your requirements that appear to be attempts to
change our protocol - don't do that."

The most recent revised-datastore draft would be a good place to document
where netmod(/netconf) believes ephemeral datastores (if that's the
instantiation) could live, and also how ephemeral configuration state could
interact with candidate, startup and running configuration.

yang-push covers much of our desired pub-sub behavior. (Yay!)

Discussion is required for how to tag security considerations impacting
transport into the yang model, in particular for notification.

Proposals for secondary identity and priority are also needed.

-- Jeff