[Netconf] NP-containers: 3 issues

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Fri, 05 August 2016 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 3091D12D5FD for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 09:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 OHwstIvydu2H for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 09:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x235.google.com (mail-ua0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::235]) (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 6F62E12D5D5 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 09:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x235.google.com with SMTP id 35so201131335uap.1 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 09:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=bo93ul2klIwS3MIL06PfgCShV3OAyfytPiV8PpPDtH0=; b=1ScnUq99M/hrWm9rtZE1loQtWHSDmimld0sKvG9z8bx3CE/BcEITlmGuIjM0B8jaPv 4kG7kFUV3RkWh9SytZd4aVkcg12K+sV3Xb4eItFShdtHScOUAvT0tY4T9iA4P/EXxlnY FBoziO6KWcFpdsYs2tRth69ckiotN9xt8lG6V1ghN7T/+hXwLkiWrePE9Ldf/wReDpKC ZAL6pcQKqzL56he+vXNUySTSC3NZ9+1JRDbsrxaFrNshqsuNiWtlwKvvOKmETyAxmk+H x+Def9s+miNzzX9elLMrxWFdvp9QzE32wedI1f0E19WOATeRjoE6w33G+QLRLPGOfW1I YOrA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=bo93ul2klIwS3MIL06PfgCShV3OAyfytPiV8PpPDtH0=; b=Q/FgkQVJsrQwZUOznKeq8ToUS9O89vYvqHIn3wLg3FL/4IGCiQkA7CFJpXvI4J0cdg AI/zBheEnJKQWXJ31jGICiykX1Vcyj2EopIzzvA6HxHfMbpMmhaqpiPoxuaF1Rfh5Ouc D7CDC8ojG7fS9IUqWJzanVl3fU6dUDcLBHfJxv1Ji2UtfAktbUDg11Q7dt42saztbFqu lsztFF94FI/C0EfuSMZBkv5xwdqVshfOpn71vsbhD9UtjPZun4WeKNCDyHyctv/AkioF XD+KZ2f2Kr4srR90WeEXxoHcZrfUVEUG2DllU7/3+lM96CPOuaMaH1BcmHqjdrO00SoO eESg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvs7dLgwShlf32lTAUtkVtQhTn4hsUR14fG26zUl+1XrKj7H3GN1J4UkfZ0lfb5b8aZ0daNLUKoNBt4+w==
X-Received: by 10.159.35.112 with SMTP id 103mr40975294uae.55.1470413740173; Fri, 05 Aug 2016 09:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.4.198 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 09:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 09:15:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHRk6aZWW8mBKBdUjJNmf6yKWiwSkD9ahq9gv-HRR5uyDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ab81aa80081053955607c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/SJUM8G-8s7QTXW4pXlNVi9bEIh0>
Subject: [Netconf] NP-containers: 3 issues
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 16:15:43 -0000

Hi,

There are 3 separate issues here of importance.


1) YANG Data Model: how NP containers work in the conceptual data model?

2) Protocol Interaction Models: how specific protocols (NETCONF, RESTCONF)
handle NP-container access?

3) RFC Publication Process: how much can be done with Errata statements?
(When will NETCONF <edit-config> be moved from YANG 1.1 to NETCONF1.2?)

I am not sure any of these issues have been decided after MBs of email.

For (1), the current draft is clear wrt/ instances in the accessible tree

For (2), there are some that say use the operations intended for your
use-case
(merge/remove) and others that say make special rules for create/delete.

For (3), this looks like a significant change, not really an editorial
bugfix.
We need to wait to see the proposed edits, but changing major protocol
behavior in the NETCONF protocol, using an errata for the YANG RFC,
doesn't seem like a good idea.


Andy