Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

Hi Tom,

On 01/03/2017 09:58, t.petch wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
> To: "Mehmet Ersue" <mersue@gmail.com>
> Cc: "'Netconf'" <netconf@ietf.org>
> 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?

Thanks,
Rob

>
> Tom Petch
>
>> /js
>>
>> --
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Netconf mailing list
>> Netconf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> .
>