Re: [Netconf] health of NETCONF

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 3:04 AM, t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

> From: "Robert Wilton" <rwilton@cisco.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 10:45 AM
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On 01/03/2017 09:58, t.petch wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
> > > 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.
>

I think this is getting done.

>
> 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.
>
>
If you mean an update to RFC 6244 would be useful, then I agree

> Tom Petch
>

Andy

>
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Tom Petch
> > >
> > >> /js
> > >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>