IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] Solicit comments on inline action capability for NETCONF

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Wed, 04 July 2018 04:43 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
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 12E15130E9D for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 21:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.189
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.189 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 VyVvNgw9sdMy for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 21:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68FE5130E39 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 21:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id ED1DD75AA15C5 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 05:43:40 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 05:43:41 +0100
Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.193]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 12:43:33 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Rohit R Ranade <rohitrranade@huawei.com>, "Zhengguangying (Walker)" <zhengguangying@huawei.com>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Solicit comments on inline action capability for NETCONF
Thread-Index: AdQTOvQ+DGsUYeJXQ/uaFzBxunpGvAABkhagAAO3KjA=
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 04:43:33 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AEC379E@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AEC24AC@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <991B70D8B4112A4699D5C00DDBBF878A6BBC8F99@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <991B70D8B4112A4699D5C00DDBBF878A6BBC8F99@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.33.244]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AEC379Enkgeml513mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/bD4f5Ug6_kDALMSzsM_pHnhMtxk>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Solicit comments on inline action capability for NETCONF
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 04:43:48 -0000

Hi, Rohi:
发件人: Rohit R Ranade
发送时间: 2018年7月4日 10:52
收件人: Qin Wu; Zhengguangying (Walker)
抄送: netconf@ietf.org
主题: RE: Solicit comments on inline action capability for NETCONF

Hi Wuqin / Walker,

Section 1

“However which
   data node is applied to which configuration datastore is not
   specified under "action".
”
RFC 8342 is clear that “action” is always invoked in the context of <operational> datastore.
Section 6.2:
“Actions are always invoked in the context of the operational state
   datastore.  The node for which the action is invoked MUST exist in
   the operational state datastore.
”
[Qin]: Good quotation, we are surprised the action defined in RFC7950 is restricted to being invoked only in operational state datastore,

Limit action to operational state datastore has benefit to avoid operation conflict on the same conceptual node in the underlying

 data model. but see more useful to invoke action on configuration datastore as well, e.g.,<running>.


Is there any user scenario where config and action both MUST happen together ? If so, I feel the introduction can elaborate more on such scenario.


[Qin]:Yes, invoking action on configuration datastore is our key use cases,e.g., batch operation on 100 interfaces and enable Interface statistics and
Then set MTU value to a specific interface. Enable interface statistics on 100 interfaces will happen first and then MTU value setup.
These operations have no conflict risk and can execute in any order in one transaction, it will be great to introduce this multi-sub operations in one transaction.

In Some other cases when action is invoked in operational state datastore, we can use <operational> to get learned configuration and translate them into static configuration.

With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade

From: Netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: 04 July 2018 07:32
To: netconf@ietf.org<mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
Subject: [Netconf] Solicit comments on inline action capability for NETCONF

Hi, Folks:
We have posted inline action capability draft on Jun 28:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg14823.html



One comment we received from the list is:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg14863.html

The v-(01) is uploaded to address this comment.
Therefore we would like to draw you attention again on this draft

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-netconf-inline-action-capability-01
We would like to receive more review and feedback on this draft, thanks.

-Qin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email