Re: [Netconf] health of NETCONF

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

> On 1 Mar 2017, at 14:02, t.petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Wilton" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 11:38 AM
> 
>> On 01/03/2017 11:04, t.petch wrote:
>>> From: "Robert Wilton" <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 10:45 AM
>>>> 
>>>> On 01/03/2017 09:58, t.petch wrote:
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
> <[e-mail]
>>>>> 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 see that datastores and YANG are directly linked.  Specifically,
> I
>>>> think that the "config" statement, and any future I2RS related
>>>> "ephemeral" statement (or extension) give the data nodes in a YANG
>>> data
>>>> model particular semantics in the different datastores.
>>>> 
>>>> So, I sort of see the document hierarchy should be something like:
>>>> 
>>>>     Datastores architecture
>>>>              ^
>>>>              |                    (NETMOD WG)
>>>>         YANG language
>>>>         ^          ^
>>>>         |          |
>>>>         |   Encodings of YANG data trees
>>>>         |               (XML, JSON, CBOR)
>>>>         |                    ^
>>>>    -  - |-  -  -  -  -  -  - |-  -  -  -  -  -
>>>>         |                    |    (NETCONF WG)
>>>>      Common protocol abstraction
>>>> (that all YANG protocols should conform to).
>>>>      ^             ^            ^
>>>>      |             |            |
>>>>   RESTCONF      NETCONF        CoMI
>>>> 
>>>> So, for the split of work between NETMOD and NETCONF, my thoughts
> are
>>>> that basically the work above the dotted line should be done in
>>> NETMOD,
>>>> and the work below the line should be done in NETCONF.  Of course,
>>> some
>>>> of the work may be done in other WGs (CoMI, I2RS, etc).
>>>> 
>>>>> I think that the rush to  get
>>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores
>>>>> out is militating against the long term health of NETCONF.
>>>> Please can you clarify, do you mean long term health of the NETCONF
>>> WG,
>>>> or the NETCONF RFC, or the NETCONF protocol?
>>> I mean NETCONF the means of doing network configuration, so that
>>> includes the protocol as defined in RFC6241, datastores as defined
> in
>>> RFC6241 and the existence of a data modelling language and data
> models
>>> written therein.  Essentially, the problem that the NETCONF WG was
> set
>>> up to solve.
>>> 
>>> The weakness I see is the lack of a Standards Track architecture or
>>> framework or some such which would likely have datastores at its
> heart;
>>> and, unlike you, I see the expertise for that in the NETCONF WG and
> not
>>> in the NETMOD WG.
>> 
>> OK.  I had, perhaps incorrectly, assumed that the same experts are
>> participating in both WGs, and the split was more for a division of
>> labour rather than differing areas of expertise.
> 
> Robert
> 
> There is another practical reason for me.  NETCONF is a 'friendly' list
> where I get any e-mail thereon next time I logon, which is most days a
> week.  NETMOD is different.  I am currently up-to-date, but only for the
> first time in a month; some times I am months behind and thinking I
> could have contributed to that if only the topic were not several
> hundred e-mails further on by now.  So anything on NETCONF I have the
> chance to contribute to; NETMOD de facto I do not.

I don't get how this maps to the level of expertise in either WG.

Lada

> 
> Tom Petch
> 
>> Rob
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Tom Petch
>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Rob
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Tom Petch
>>>>> 
>>>>>> /js
>>>>>> 
>>> .
>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67