IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-nmdsdt-netmod-revised-datastores-00

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Mon, 19 December 2016 10:38 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
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 33261129604; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 02:38:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 f5GrbuPt3m7P; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 02:38:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F994129669; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 02:37:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:691f:24b5:66f8:76be] (unknown [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:691f:24b5:66f8:76be]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0120A60ABD; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:37:57 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1482143878; bh=urzxPjNQEFqpMbcIwqR441qts8iytfuTnei3g17JSMQ=; h=From:Date:To; b=IGZMfYePYBHZQ1Boy77dyhnvs4+nsGYhVaPpqWxzA5drZg6OIBApYeeWHIPMku0fM pf4SxlFvaBNif9mWAA3YMKXYOBZEy1Wa1Pdlq7iigMeCxIDdtUd8+Pkl3jYEnb2PKw 35orx6ZvLSjA1n0GmuMl+084FN7j7UuSy3nw0vDQ=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <001001d259cf$3d5a0de0$b80e29a0$@hansfords.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:37:57 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <462EE5E8-2FBD-4946-93B5-81E048AB3BE2@nic.cz>
References: <beb56258-c0ae-f625-a2d4-50f6a4c0bf26@labn.net> <B0E8B70F-56B8-48BF-95E8-83A241DD7A45@nic.cz> <20161205093858.GA97253@elstar.local> <9448A315-D0B4-46E3-8456-C648698B50A0@nic.cz> <20161205120210.GA97559@elstar.local> <CABCOCHQZJvCp2=Ay=nMfZPqwLkKe2OCZAZhTaKVryNEKThitNw@mail.gmail.com> <CAGyj0qOOJZg2b9UA2q7oAEkdEJaNLUd6n_Dc+CE5=U8N7ifsrw@mail.gmail.com> <F8614A0D-518C-4A05-BB7D-C460CD3D5972@nic.cz> <52c8547e61354c1a9adefc69ff07a4a7@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <CABCOCHToDs98tr3o5Np1vjvKa9uMS_MWKJZHo8GQtNj_1xXEiQ@mail.gmail.com> <004101d25589$a0cd5f20$e2681d60$@gmail.com> <CABCOCHTnCu4uE=da2Z+rOArGBoMXcicsofgLQP8LPLGkR-ho5Q@mail.gmail.com> <m2mvfyr3jd.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz> <001001d259cf$3d5a0de0$b80e29a0$@hansfords.net>
To: Jonathan Hansford <Jonathan@hansfords.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Vbr_VHVNcbd3R5I42o1ot_qzp1w>
Cc: NetMod WG Chairs <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>, NetConf WG Chairs <netconf-chairs@ietf.org>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-nmdsdt-netmod-revised-datastores-00
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: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:38:18 -0000

> On 19 Dec 2016, at 09:09, Jonathan Hansford <Jonathan@hansfords.net> wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav
>> Lhotka
>> Sent: 14 December 2016 14:25
>> To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>; Mehmet Ersue
>> <mersue@gmail.com>
>> Cc: NetMod WG Chairs <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>; NetConf WG Chairs
>> <netconf-chairs@ietf.org>; NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>; Netconf
>> <netconf@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [netmod] [Netconf] WG adoption poll draft-nmdsdt-netmod-
>> revised-datastores-00
>> 
> :
>> As for candidate, it is optional and we all know that it is quite
> problematic if
>> concurrent access of multiple clients is possible. Therefore, it would IMO
> be a
>> good riddance.
> 
> For someone who is yet to see NETCONF and YANG used in anger, can you
> explain why judicious use of candidate and lock is problematic with
> concurrent access and why, as a consequence, it should be got rid of? One of

I am not proposing to ban candidate or something but IMO it needn't be part of the base NETCONF (or whatever protocol) spec.

A typical problem of candidate combined with NACM is that user A edits item X and B edits Y in candidate. If B doesn't have write access to X and A to Y, then none of them is able to make a commit.

Lada


> the features of NETCONF that attracted us to it is its support for
> transactioning, a feature which it would appear came from previous
> experience with JUNOS. Is it current guidance that transactioning should not
> be used?
> 
> Jonathan
> 
>> 
>> Lada
> 

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email