Re: [Netconf] {+restconf}/data vs <running>

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 12:58 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 12:45:26PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf is silent about the relationship
> > between the {+restconf}/data and the <running> datastore, and it cannot
> > be deduced from RFC 8040 either, because it only says in sec. 3.3.1:
> > 
> >    This mandatory resource [{+restconf}/data] represents the combined
> >    configuration and state data resources that can be accessed by a
> >    client.
> > 
> > I think this is a serious omission.
> 
> We are not changing {+restconf}/data.

My point is that it is unclear what {+restconf}/data really is: "the combined
configuration and state data resources" is too vague given that several
configuration datastores may be present.

>  
> > Regarding draft-lhotka-netconf-restconf-transactions-00, I received a
> > lot of criticism for changing the semantics of
> > {+restconf}/data. However, I don't think it was the case: according to
> > the above definition, it seems perfectly OK if {+restconf}/data
> > represents combined configuration **from <staging>** and state data.
> 
> Perhaps people had the impression that your proposal changes
> {+restconf}/data or that it should work with the NMDA solution.

I am arguing that I did NOT change {+restconf}/data, I just made its definition
more precise.

If configuration resources under {+restconf}/data are expected to be identical
to those under {+restconf}/ds/ietf-datastores:running, then draft-ietf-netconf-
nmda-restconf should say so.

Lada

> 
> /js
> 
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67