Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT), Re: Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

The discussion on my no objection is very lengthy as there does not seem to
be agreement on a few things from the WG.  Does this document need to go
back to the working group?

Thank you,
Kathleen

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Robert Varga <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On 01/23/2017 09:26 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > >> I'm pulling your questions to the top of this email.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Question 1: Ok.  Just to make sure I understand this correctly - these
> > >> topology models are intended to be I2RS-specific, and they cannot be
> used
> > >> for any other purpose.  If anyone needs a general topology model
> outside of
> > >> the I2RS protocol, they will have to design their own model.  Is this
> > >> correct?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Response 1:  Not really.
> > > Ok, so are you saying that the models are in fact generic, and can be
> > > used outside of I2RS?  I.e., they *can* be used with the normal
> > > configuration datastores?
> > >
> >
> > From implementation experience, yes, they can be used for storing
> > configuration. OpenDaylight uses (an ancient predecessor of)
> > yang-network-topo to store configure details about devices in its
> > managed networks.
>
> Robert, this sub-thread started with Susan's statement:
>
>    1) I2RS Data models do not utilize the configuration data store,
>
> i.e., despite the fact that the data model is config true, it cannot
> be edited via running etc in NETCONF (or normal edit in RESTCONF).
>
> My comment on this was that *if* this is true, it should be noted in
> the document.  At this point, I am not sure if it is true or not.
>
>
> /martin
>
>
>


-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen