IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] Does NMDA support synchronous configuration operation?

Henry Yu <hyu2010b@gmail.com> Sat, 23 June 2018 22:35 UTC

Return-Path: <hyu2010b@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955EB130EFC for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 15:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mAps7aIp_Rdr for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 15:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52c.google.com (mail-ed1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DAD2130EF4 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 15:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id c1-v6so3168749edt.2 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 15:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ulJxJVmcaWeMW1jIqSC0uShlLkYFDnN4TD9g7fIFPuI=; b=SfQZeRTQb2OCr/ez5FKwJajmgQMdYpfbwPU8jjDrH87jQj0tYduQyYqM/i5EL8L7v1 E/pBnjj6/ZJLc+3evM/ftZ3pQqcwXzMv684z96FD08fP9GdZXkF9k9zZMtmnX1ccfoqi xUhB43Mk26QvetR4ibimGQK0hEWK/RKEezPbB+kdJ0TDq/pfRcukFkK1DsIQAruaYats Z052EnuHwEUlz38sqU2scQRzxVL5cMUDEMp7yfJVcTu5yyeOZbsEvJWum4riA5m90Qhv 93/YksDD7zoT6WEWmsXSk08uhBT1xozKtJ1V0Hr0rQ0oNw+W7Qm9ay5Vz1gj/KtpcHQN pkUQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=ulJxJVmcaWeMW1jIqSC0uShlLkYFDnN4TD9g7fIFPuI=; b=TfomfedXESlOdp1FEu3QKjtmWceYSjBkcrDrhlywV8Bj4Ir6r9wlwI9p3lxqQt5O9/ 5lwpSmPgmBOHlWm+EcUD4ey+Z4Ozf7oaE2/C8Xp5wgEsireaZemdjVm1R7Fp+Kbg7Nj8 T7Jm8qawSNrNIBAIhcXFTjN88NPBEYM1viY+1EoauNQk6QWFTYV66gkkB5nt/EVAnObF EflQFfoFTQ0tqyCwng7TmgH1UtCgSAXgBtera8kd4noq3ejyTEwN0Ld62ei+j07bb+hE xXTW/2DfDI4HffbB/ShrvWeYpJnyR6YHAn8NpQNLlko6Rzt1p5F+ElY9+iLr4CLc4ni+ 6J1A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2K/K8f6ioxw43sd+c9KGAoBMjFZklPbd5j10KVvEZbHzGi6YRY zJ7kKKt7Qz881qNB77A9MkU3pjkEUmrcjkdz+/8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKIBJ8LjuOVI1hxqfuizW8tD1ZxqX6GM6ao49VeDYqEtW3EoTYHGLSreBzdsxXYDQK/HZC2kiUI+b3BpM4RoBco=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:870f:: with SMTP id i15-v6mr6256847edb.218.1529793309608; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 15:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFsbzLmF+=x7Uiru8mT_17gGxmPwaLn_k735JMDVyo3OTumZRQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180622224731.dvjo3vzcxkc46ggl@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
In-Reply-To: <20180622224731.dvjo3vzcxkc46ggl@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
From: Henry Yu <hyu2010b@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 18:34:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFsbzL==MsLiQznaLgjEsPV5D5tBPgpgcdG76riD4Yy_DODHOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, netconf@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/KLp97vSDBK0jPUKPijRYT7U0e08>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Does NMDA support synchronous configuration operation?
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 22:35:14 -0000

Thanks for pointing me to draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06.  Since
(mentioned in the draft),  "the error behaviour of <edit-data>
corresponds to the  "error-option" "rollback-on-error" ", it follows
that <edit-data> is synchrhrouous operation. Is that correct
understanding?

If so, then I have one more query. I am implementing a RESTCONF
server, and RFC 8040 does not seem to mention that RESTCONF offers the
"rollback-on-error" capability. Does that mean that RESTCONF
operations are asynchronous? i.e., I could simply implement RESTCONF
operations (PUT/POST/DELETE) as straight CRUD operations on data store
resources?

Thanks again.  Henry


On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 6:47 PM Juergen Schoenwaelder
<j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>
> This is not really a question of NMDA as defined in RFC 8341 since RFC
> 8341 does not detail the protocol operations.
>
> The edit-data operation defined in draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06
> is, in the sense of draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04, basically
> synchronous. There is no option to force it to be synchronous, i.e.,
> to block until all affected components and the server's applied
> configuration have been updated.
>
> Some servers may have the property that all edit-data operations
> effectively are synchronous - but then you may see errors (and perhaps
> noticable delays) if you want to configure hardware that currently is
> not present or slow to get updated.
>
> /js
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 04:33:04PM -0400, Henry Yu wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Does NMDA (RFC 8341) support the synchronous configuration operation,
> > defined in [draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04]?
> >
> >  [draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04] and its solution
> > [draft-kwatsen-netmod-opstate-02] have been replaced by RFC 8341.
> > However, it seems that RFC 8341 only requires asynchronous config
> > operations. i.e., When an intended configuration is received by the
> > sever, it is written to <intended> once it passes the schematic
> > validation, and applying the configuration to devices is a separate
> > action. Is that a correct understanding?  (I read some discussions [3]
> > from the archive, but I am still not quite certain. Any clarification
> > is appreciated.)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Henry
> >
> >  [draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04]
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04
> > [draft-kwatsen-netmod-opstate-02]
> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-kwatsen-netmod-opstate-02.txt
> > [3] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg15113.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > Netconf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email