Re: [Netconf] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Mon, 01 October 2018 06:52 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 5C02A130DD5; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 23:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 Trhjpuo3ax1g; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 23:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1951130934; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 23:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.61]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32EAA1AE03DD; Mon, 1 Oct 2018 08:52:46 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 08:52:45 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20181001.085245.2170268582776994010.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: alissa@cooperw.in
Cc: christer.holmberg@ericsson.com, gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf.all@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <0047A04B-A30D-464F-BFD3-545806F486AB@cooperw.in>
References: <153122128332.25153.10473559847025784058@ietfa.amsl.com> <20180716105513.5457wkuu4cb6gtdd@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <0047A04B-A30D-464F-BFD3-545806F486AB@cooperw.in>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/cWv2MMPbE37xgILLeWRa9wOHJEU>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 01 Oct 2018 06:52:53 -0000

Hi,

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
> Christer, thanks for your review. I have flagged your first comment in
> my No Objection ballot since it seems like a good point to clarify.
> 
> Alissa
> 
> > On Jul 16, 2018, at 6:55 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 04:14:43AM -0700, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> >> 
> >> Minor issues:
> >> 
> >> Sometimes, when a draft updates an existing RFC, people ask whether
> >> implementations not implementing the draft are still compliant with
> >> the updated
> >> RFC. Based on discussions, the consensus seems to be that existing
> >> implementations are still compliant, and if one wants to mandate the
> >> new
> >> features a bis is needed. I would just like to confirm whether that
> >> applies
> >> also to this draft. If so, perhaps a note indicating that would be
> >> useful, in
> >> order to avoid discussions in future?
> > 
> > An existing NETCONF server not implementing NMDA is still compliant to
> > the RFC 6241. However, a NETCONF server implementing NMDA (RFC 8342)
> > has to implement this update to RFC 6241. Do you want to have this
> > stated more explicitly? (We will have the same for RESTCONF and the
> > NMDA update of RESTCONF.)

How about:

OLD:

   An NMDA-compliant NETCONF server MUST support the operational state
   datastore and it MUST implement at least revision 201X-XX-XX of the
   "ietf-yang-library" module defined in [I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis].

NEW:

   An NMDA-compliant NETCONF server MUST implement the module
   "ietf-netconf-nmda" defined in this document, MUST support the
   operational state datastore, and it MUST implement at least revision
   201X-XX-XX of the "ietf-yang-library" module defined in
   [I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis].



/martin




> > 
> >> Related to that, it would also be good to have an interoperability
> >> statement, saying that implementations that implement the draft will
> >> still work with implementations that do not.
> > 
> > This primarily concerns clients: They need to be able to fallback to
> > using <edit-config> instead of <edit-data> and <get> instead of
> > <get-data> if they communicate with a non NMDA NETCONF server. I am
> > not sure whether this is a "SHOULD be able to fallback" or a "MUST be
> > able to fallback".
> > 
> > /js
> > 
> > -- 
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> > Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gen-art mailing list
> > Gen-art@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>