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

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:

> Robert and Martin:
>
> I agree with Robert that the current implementations of the ODL topology
> models are handled as part of the configuration data store with ephemeral
> state.   I will point out that these implementation are pre-standards
> implementations of the I2RS YANG Data model.
>
> While standardizing the topology data models, the I2RS WG have been asked
> to
> align with the draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-00.txt NETMOD WG
> document.  This NETMOD WG document moves the I2RS ephemeral data store from
> configuration data store to a Control Plane data store.   If we follow this
> draft, the I2RS Topology models are part of the I2RS ephemeral data store.
> If you disagree with the placement of the Topology data models, please
> indicate this to the NETMOD WG and to Benoit.  Could you propose a way that
> you would see the ephemeral state working with the configuration data store
> to the NETMOD WG?
>

This was discussed many times, going back to the NYC interim for NETMOD WG.

There are 2 choices that are backward compatible

1) I2RS nodes are config=true
    This is OK if the data nodes represent configuration that can be
overridden
     by the values in the ephemeral datastore.  NETCONF can write the
    configuration datastore. I2RS can write the ephemeral datastore

2) I2RS nodes are config=false
   This is OK if the data nodes represent I2RS-only data that cannot be
written
   to a configuration datastore. I2RS can write to this data in the
ephemeral datastore only

> Quite frankly, I feel a bit of whip-lash on this topic.   NETMOD WG asks
> for
> Control Plane Data store.  You ask for configuration data store (which was
> the I2RS initial proposal).   It is possible for either one to work for
> I2RS
> Topology models - if the right details are taken care of.   How do we make
> progress on choosing one method so we can write the I2RS Topology Models
> security considerations.?
>
> Sue
>

Andy

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Varga [mailto:nite@hq.sk]
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 4:11 PM
> To: Martin Bjorklund; shares@ndzh.com
> Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology@ietf.org;
> j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de; i2rs-chairs@ietf.org;
> Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com; iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
> Robert
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> i2rs@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>