Re: [Netconf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06.txt> (YANG Library) to Proposed Standard

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

On 02/07/2018 15:58, t.petch wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Wilton" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 11:51 AM
>
>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> It is entirely up to the server implementation to decide what modules
>> should be put together into a single module set.
>>
>> Some examples of categories that could be used to group different
>> related modules together:
>>
>> (i) Modules that are common across all datastores, vs modules that are
>> only used for particular datastores (e.g. a dynamic datastore).
>>
>> (ii) Modules for different versions of software could be reported as
>> separate module sets. Only the module set(s) associated with a
>> particular software version would expect to be used. This hypothetical
>> example is from the YANG versioning work, and may or may not become a
>> recommendation depending on how that work pans out ...
>>
>> (iii) Sometimes vendors want to split their software up into separate
>> packages, and module sets could be used to represent these different
>> packages (e.g. core, vs L2VPN, vs L3VPN, vs Subscribers, etc).
>>
>> (iv) Sometimes devices need to support different schemas at the same
>> time (e.g. The IETF ecosystem, vs OpenConfig ecosystem, vs vendor
> native
>> ecosystem). Again, this is another case where module sets may be
> useful
>> to differentiate between the different groups.
>>
>> Of course, if a server is very simple, and none of the above applies,
>> then it could choose to have just a single module set.
>>
>> Does that help clarify their potential usage?
> Robert, Juergen
>
> Yes; in which case, I suggest adding a line to that effect.
>
> NEW s.3 after "... (and their submodules) used only for imports."
>
> The assignment of a module to a module-set is at the user's discretion.
> YANG library attaches no semantics as to which module-set a module is
> listed in.
I don't mind us adding this text, except that I would replace "user's" 
with "server's".

Juergen?

Thanks,
Rob

>
> Tom Petch
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On 02/07/2018 11:32, t.petch wrote:
>>> One aspect of this leaves me puzzled; what is a module set?
>>>
>>> Yes, I see that a data store schema is made up of module sets, which
> are
>>> made up of modules, but given, say, 40 modules, what criteria decide
>>> whether this is one set of 40, two of 20, half a dozen of varying
> size
>>> or what?
>>>
>>> Tom Petch
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "The IESG" <[e-mail]>
>>> To: "IETF-Announce" <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
>>> <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 5:22 PM
>>>
>>>> The IESG has received a request from the Network Configuration WG
>>> (netconf)
>>>> to consider the following document: - 'YANG Library'
>>>>     <draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06.txt> as Proposed Standard
>>>>
>>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> solicits
>>> final
>>>> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>>>> [e-mail] mailing lists by 2018-06-28. Exceptionally, comments
> may
>>> be
>>>> sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
>>> beginning of
>>>> the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>>>
>>>> Abstract
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      This document describes a YANG library that provides
> information
>>>>      about the YANG modules, datastores, and datastore schemas used
> by a
>>>>      network management server.  Simple caching mechanisms are
> provided
>>> to
>>>>      allow clients to minimize retrieval of this information.  This
>>>>      version of the YANG library supports the Network Management
>>> Datastore
>>>>      Architecture by listing all datastores supported by a network
>>>>      management server and the schema that is used by each of these
>>>>      datastores.
>>>>
>>>>      This document obsoletes RFC 7895.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The file can be obtained via
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis/
>>>>
>>>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>>>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis/ballot/
>>>>
>>>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
> .
>