Re: [i2rs] I2RS Interim Meeting - June 1, 2016 - 10:00am - 11:00am - Topic: Ephemeral State Requirements

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

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]> 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
>