Re: [netconf] [netmod] RE: pls clarify get operation

[Rohit R Ranade <[e-mail]>]

If IETF modules do not define a ‘-state’ subtree, for example the “ietf-module-tags”, each vendor who wants to support Non-NMDA clients may have to augment such modules with a “-state” subtree of their own.


From: netconf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: 18 July 2019 08:13
To: Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [netconf] [netmod] RE: pls clarify get operation

发件人: Kent Watsen [mailto:[e-mail]]
发送时间: 2019年7月10日 2:31
收件人: Qin Wu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
抄送: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
主题: Re: [netconf] [netmod] RE: pls clarify get operation

[Just back from a 4th of July thing]

Hi Qin,
It provides guideline how to create temporary non-NMDA module from NMDA module, but temporary non-NMDA module is not standard module. So everybody will create the same temporary non-NMDA module?
I also feel this second paragraph is not very clear, especially the last sentence,  is nested config false data nodes part of NMDA module or temporary non-NMDA
Module? Looks like  nested config false data node part of NMDA module?
True, but as I wrote Frank on the 28th:

"Some drafts already publish a "state" module in their Appendix and, when they do, there is a completely standard non-NMDA IETF solution.  I don't know if this strategy is being followed universally but, if not, then I don't believe the IETF would object at all to the publication of drafts for missing state models in drafts that only assumed NMDA."

Are you facing this situation currently?   If so, with which modules?  Have you considered submitting an I-D to define the missing state tree module?

[Qin]: Yes, we are looking for completely standard non-NMDA IETF solution in this NMDA transition time period, since we assume many NETCONF clients in the existing deployment don’t support NMDA. We are not sure state module in the appendix is standard non-NMDA model or not? How many operators and implementer will use them as standard model.
Yeah, for some of other model may not define such state module in the appendix.
Can non-NMDA client consume NMDA module?

Sort of.  The config-true nodes will appear in the <running> as usual, and the config-false nodes can be accessed via the standard operations.  But there will be issues as, for instance, the config-false nodes will only appear for configured items and the operational value for config-true nodes will be missing, the latter of which may be important as an NMDA-optimized data model is unlikely to define config-false nodes for any config-true nodes, and hence the config-false that are defined may be far and few between, leading to an unacceptably incomplete upstate view.

[Qin]:That is exactly the issue we are facing. How do we as Non-NMDA client use NDMA module to get system generated configuration. I assume config false nodes for config-true nodes are referred to system generated configuration. These system generated configuration can not be obtained through get operation.