Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 4:01 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:

>
> > On 1 Mar 2017, at 10:58, t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
> > To: "Mehmet Ersue" <mersue@gmail.com>
> > Cc: "'Netconf'" <netconf@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 10:14 PM
> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 09:44:06PM +0100, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
> >>
> >>> 6. Revise the current NETCONF datastore concept as a protocol- and
> > modeling
> >>> language-independent standard as part of the network configuration
> >>> framework. Use the datastore solution proposal in
> >>> draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores as its basis. Will be used as a
> >>> normative reference in protocol specifications.
> >>
> >> There is no point in dupliating work in WGs that have a common history
> >> and a common set of active contributors.
> >
> > Juergen
> >
> > I am not sure what you are proposing;  Currently, datastores are poorly
> > described in RFC6241 and RFC7950 and the publication of another
> > incomplete description in the shape of
> > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores
> > will likely make things worse.
> >
> > I see a need for a datastores RFC, probably separate from the current
> > specifications, and do see the NETCONF WG as better placed to do it.
> >
> > I think that the rush to  get
> > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores
> > out is militating against the long term health of NETCONF.
> >
>
> I agree, and I would also add draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount to it (of
> which I am a co-author).
>
> Original NETCONF and YANG were limited but (mostly) coherent and, in a
> way, simple and elegant. The recent developments are afterthoughts and
> kitchen sinks that will destroy these qualities.
>
> Instead of rushing with these documents, we should step back and think
> about a new architecture that could consistently support the new
> requirements.
>
>
I think the entire approach to virtual servers is too complicated with
schema-mount.
Instead of keeping the protocol fixed and playing tricks with the data tree,
it might be better to keep the current YANG we have, and enhance
the protocols in order to access virtual servers from the 'real' server.

Lada
>

Andy

>
>
> > Tom Petch
> >
> >> /js
> >>
> >> --
> >> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> >> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> >> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Netconf mailing list
> >> Netconf@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > Netconf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>