Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04.txt> (Terminology and Requirements for Enhanced Handling of Operational State) to Informational RFC

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 1:29 AM, tom p. <[e-mail]> wrote:

> This I-D worries me.  I see it as very important, but can it be
> understood by those who have not read the thousands of e-mails about it
> (and its precursors) on the netmod WG list?  I see it as recasting
> network management for the next 10 years, in the way that RFC3535 (IAB
> Workshop) has for the past 10, a workshop that led to NETCONF, RESTCONF,
> YANG and so on.  Yet there are no references back to this work, no
> definitions imported from this work, in what
> I see as a major change to this work and the RFC that describe it; the
> only normative reference is RFC2119!
>
> That IAB workshop stressed configuration at the expense of state, and
> gave the former a very narrow role, and this has driven all the work
> since.  This I-D makes no reference to those terms, uses configuration
> in a different sense and even refers to 'configuration state' which,
> hithertoo, would have been the oxymoron to end all oxymorons.  As I say,
> read all the posts on the netmod list and you may know what it means,
> but I worry.
>
> My own take on this topic is that because of the stress on
> configuration, as narrowly defined, YANG and NETCONF have had problems
> dealing with some common scenarios where state and configuration
> intertwine, such as hot-plugging an interface card, or modelling a
> routing table with inputs from various sources.  I see these as solved
> problems, albeit not very elegantly, in the current YANG models and see
> these new requirements, at least in part, as a request to change YANG or
> NETCONF or both to provide a more elegant solution to those problems so
> perhaps I am a bit cynical about the benefits that a solution to these
> requirements will bring - the problem, at least in part is solved, let's
> move on to another one.
>
>
I cannot disagree with anything you wrote.
I suggest people read this draft and decide for themselves.



> Tom Petch
>

Andy



>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "The IESG" <[e-mail]>
> To: "IETF-Announce" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
> <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 2:42 PM
>
> >
> > The IESG has received a request from the NETCONF Data Modeling
> Language
> > WG (netmod) to consider the following document:
> > - 'Terminology and Requirements for Enhanced Handling of Operational
> >    State'
> >   <draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04.txt> as Informational RFC
> >
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> > [e-mail] mailing lists by 2016-02-16. Exceptionally, comments may
> be
> > sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
> > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> >
> > Abstract
> >
> >
> >    This document primarily regards the difference between the intended
> >    configuration and the applied configuration of a device and how
> >    intended and applied configuration relate to the operational state
> of
> >    a device.  This document defines requirements for the applied
> >    configuration's data model and its values, as well as for enabling
> a
> >    client to know when a configuration has been fully applied or not,
> >    how to access operational state, and how to relate intended
> >    configuration nodes to applied configuration and derived state
> nodes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The file can be obtained via
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs/
> >
> > IESG discussion can be tracked via
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs/ballot/
> >
> >
> > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >
>
>