Re: [netconf] (Reaffirming) Poll on transaction ID

Mahesh, WG, 

Please allow me to give a little more context, since I think it is hard to understand the poll question out of the blue.

The transaction-id mechanism discussed here builds on and extends the RFC 8040/RESTCONF ideas about Etags and Timestamps for config true data. The goal is to reduce redundant communications between server and client significantly, and reduce the need for datastore locks. While implementing the draft mechanism, we came up with a possibility to further enhance the mechanism specified in the latest transaction-id draft, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-transaction-id/01/ for even greater savings in communication and computation. 

I raised the poll question to the WG to understand whether the author(s) should take the time to specify this enhancement in detail, for the WG to consider. If the WG thinks the enhancement is going in the wrong direction, that would be good to know, so that effort is not wasted.

The poll has two options:
"NO/variance": Authors, please specify in detail how the transaction-id mechanism in NETCONF could (optional to implement) work more efficiently. Leave RESTCONF as is.
"YES/stay true": Authors, please do not add further differences between the transaction-id mechanism in NETCONF and RESTCONF.

In principle it would be possible to bring the same enhanced mechanism to RESTCONF as well, but that would require a slight change of wording in RFC 8040. If the WG is interested, that would be a discussion for later.

Best Regards,
/jan

> On 15 Aug 2023, at 03:04, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi WG,
> 
> One of the polls taken in IETF 117 during the WG session was on the question of whether we wanted to allow variance in how transaction ID is implemented in RESTCONF. In other words, should the transaction ID stay true to RFC 8040. If it is still not clear what the poll was asking, please refer to the following deck, and in particular the slides on “Comparing Variants”
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/117/materials/slides-117-netconf-transaction-id-and-trace-00.pdf
> 
> We wanted to re-affirm that poll on the mailing list here. Here it goes.
> 
> Question - Should transaction ID draft (draft-ieft-netconf-transaction-id-0) stay true to RFC 8040, or allow for variance in what is returned when requested for a versioned node?
> 
> Yes says it should stay true to RFC 8040.
> No says it should allow for variance.
> 
> Please vote. Thanks.
> 
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> mjethanandani@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf