Re: [netconf] kw review of draft-wu-netconf-nmda-compatibility-01

Qin Wu <> Mon, 25 March 2019 07:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64AC1120365 for <>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 00:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c3sU2cHaf5oA for <>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 00:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E5A3120353 for <>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 00:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 97D6FB444FFBBA857B38 for <>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:31:35 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:31:34 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:31:28 +0800
From: Qin Wu <>
To: Kent Watsen <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] kw review of draft-wu-netconf-nmda-compatibility-01
Thread-Index: AdTi2WPmHoXJG37JTtqNbXFc5cXG9A==
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:31:27 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA4874F81nkgeml513mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] kw review of draft-wu-netconf-nmda-compatibility-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:31:39 -0000

发件人: netconf [] 代表 Kent Watsen
发送时间: 2019年3月25日 13:29
主题: [netconf] kw review of draft-wu-netconf-nmda-compatibility-01

I started reading this document, but struggled with this sentence in the Introduction:

“NMDA Transition Guidelines in section 4.23.3 of [RFC8407]<> <snip/> doesn't provide guidelines on whether existing NETCONF protocol operations such as get/get-config/edit-config change semantics when they are exchanged between the non NMDA client and the NMDA aware  server.”

Correct, no statements are made (here or in RFC 8526), because no changes exist.  RFC 6241 is unchanged by RFC 8526.

[Qin]: No intention to change existing protocol operation, but we believe clarification on protocol behavior is needed or additional behavior needs to be considered since coexisting NMDA client and Non-NMDA client to communicate with NMDA server does exist.

The draft also has this statement in the Problems section:

“When a server is upgraded to NMDA aware server and needs to support

both NMDA client and non-NMDA clients, there is no standards-based way for the server to know whether the client supports NMDA.”

True, but it doesn’t matter, as the server only cares if the client uses the RPC from RFC 6241 or RFC 8526.

[Qin]:Exactly, we believe we can use RPC from RFC6241 or RFC8526 to distinguish the RPC request is sent from NMDA client or non-NMDA client.

In order to maintain backwards compatibility, there are *no* changes to RFC 6241.   It is an implementation issue for the NMDA-aware server to maintain support for the non-NMDA aware RPCs.

[Qin]: I still have misconception to maintain protocol backward compatibility, e.g., default config, system config, where does these config data saved? <running>?

After NMDA is introduced, these config data seems to moved to <operational>? Correct, based on RFC6241, it seems to indicate default config is part of <running>, but for system config, which datastore  is it saved within NETCONF server? It is unspecified. if this is true, to maintain backward compatibility, the current NMDA NC spec doesn’t tell us how to handle these config data relocation,

Should this config data relocation be aware of Non NMDA Client or not?

FWIW, the draft also has suggestions for clarifying NMDA behavior (e.g., with-defaults), which may be needed, but I didn’t dig into these suggestions as I want to first ensure my understanding of the problem statement.

[Qin]:Yes, this is intention. We want to address NMDA implementation ambiguity issues.


Kent // contributor