Re: [Netconf] nmda-restconf operations (was: netconf-binary-encoding comments)

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

On 09/07/2018 19:13, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:48:57PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>
>>>> This isn't what I meant.  To be more specific, I'm wondering if the nmda-restconf
>>>> draft would benefit from having a sentence like:
>>>>
>>>>     A RESTCONF server supporting NMDA datastores MAY implement the
>>>>     "ietf-netconf" [RFC6241] and "ietf-netconf-nmda" [I-D. ietf-netconf-nmda-
>>>>     netconf] modules to enable the NETCONF operations defined in those
>>>>     drafts to appear {+restconf}/operations resource.
>>>>
>>>> Note: I put "MAY" as RESTCONF may someday have a more native way to do this.
>>>>
>>> Well, "ietf-netconf" does not really support NMDA well and this is why
>>> we have "ietf-netconf-nmda". Does not make much sense to point to
>>> "ietf-netconf" in an NMDA document.
>> But we'd still need lock, unlock, commit, commit-confirmed, etc., right?
> Yep.
OK.  Just to check - the client can determine which of these operations 
are supported via the feature statements in ietf-netconf.yang and the 
corresponding module entry in YANG library bis?

I was wondering whether a GET request on {+restconf}/operations would 
also list all of the supported operations, but as far as I can see RFC 
8040 doesn't specify this.

>   
>> Maybe it's a moot point, since ietf-netconf-nmda requires that ietf-netconf
>> is implemented too, but I thought being explicit would be helpful here.
> As long as readers get the idea that implementing lets say edit-config
> is perhaps not the best idea...
It might be a good idea to explicitly list the NETCONF operations that 
are not well defined and hence SHOULD NOT be implemented.

Thanks,
Rob


>   
>> So, adding something like this to nmda-restconf would be good?
> It likely does not hurt to be clear that this option of using NETCONF
> operations in RESTCONF exists.
>
> /js
>