Re: [netconf] [netmod] RE: pls clarify get operation

Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net> Sat, 29 June 2019 12:21 UTC

Return-Path: <0100016ba32f36f9-fbbee6ca-eee0-4735-a446-067bf59ed125-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
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 5429D120108; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 05:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.com
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 dqQbLsVTATDu; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 05:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a8-83.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-83.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9666812010E; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 05:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw; d=amazonses.com; t=1561810909; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:Feedback-ID; bh=lT9oGS1gdEVDyqrIp6idqGfojFYeY/yUogokmJFB8ic=; b=dX8GaaVOpLPoY+TMwNbqSuhgsurdLcVlxR8baqL/WQ6i8tA4dhb4bgSmolNWyD72 A6yIsfjumrxYWI/MbHXi9y2cWT9ictw2wAkWcepFWXM8mEndjSHY5+uVAihRisbzmaG RVy+fgWXEBywfnR6aEmgQAvX5T5SvV1bAOzF6d6s=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-311C214D-F3F0-485A-8E5B-3478E76D942E
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16F203)
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA49BA669@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 12:21:48 +0000
Cc: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, "Fengchong (frank)" <frank.fengchong@huawei.com>, "Zhangwei (SS)" <zhangwei70@huawei.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, Yangang <yangang@huawei.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <0100016ba32f36f9-fbbee6ca-eee0-4735-a446-067bf59ed125-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA49BA669@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.06.29-54.240.8.83
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/gbgOqlvYL3y_RlNtI32m-98hb98>
Subject: Re: [netconf] [netmod] RE: pls clarify get operation
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG 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: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 12:21:52 -0000

Hi Qin,

> If my understanding is correct, Frank’s intention is not proposed to fall back to single datastore, split tree. His concern is how Does the non-NMDA client talk with NMDA compliant devices, suppose large amount of devices support NMDA.

Using the original non-NMDA protocols, assuming the servers support both NMDA and non-NMDA.

> Does the device need to support both NMDA model and non-NMDA model?

Yes, assuming a heterogeneous mix of NMDA and non-NMDA servers. 

> Is this common case or corner case in real deployment senario.

While the industry is transitioning to NMDA, it is an expected case.  At some point, the IETF will obsolete non-NMDA support.

> suggestions or guidelines defined in NMDA architecture and NMDA guideline(/rfc8407#section-4.23.3) seem to only assume NMDA client only talks with NMDA server, non-NMDA client only talks with non-NMDA server.

True, but there’s no statement that a client or server cannot be both.  Note also that the NC/RC-NMDA RFCs explain how clients can discover if a server supports NMDA.  The intention is that the client would first try to use NMDA and, if not supported, fallback to non-NMDA. 

Kent // contributor