Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Mehmet:
>
> These are clarifying question - not requests.
>
> Do the items #6 and #7 on the charter include revising the NETCONF and
> RESTCONF to serve as a control plane protocol that interacts with the I2RS
> control plane data store supporting the ephemeral datastore?   If so, based
> on the WGs comments it seems key players (Andy Bierman for RESTCONF and a
> group of players for NETCONF) do not want this work to be done in the
> NETCONF WG.   Do I understand the sense of the mail list?
>
>
My position is that I2RS features can be done in its own RFC without
republishing the RESTCONF RFC.  Since this functionality is
optional-to-implement, a new protocol version is not required.




> Sue Hares
>

Andy


>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Netconf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mehmet Ersue
> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 9:34 AM
> To: 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'; 't.petch'
> Cc: 'Netconf'
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
>
> > Back to your question, it seems obvious to me that YANG and the XML
> encoding rules naturally belong to NETMOD, the 'NETCONF protocol details
> that NETCONF
> > did not define' naturally belong to NETCONF.
>
> Basically it is our aim to make the YANG language specification generally
> applicable to all protocols and to put protocol-specific details into the
> protocol specifications.
>
> Mehmet
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> > university.de]
> > Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 2:35 PM
> > To: t.petch <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>; Mehmet Ersue
> > <[e-mail]>; 'Netconf' <[e-mail]>; 'Benoit Claise'
> > <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 12:24:34PM +0000, t.petch wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Kent Watsen" <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 8:14 PM
> > >
> > > > > Kent
> > > > >
> > > > > 7 is a monster because of the XML encoding rules, not because of
> > > > > the revised datastore concepts.  And datastores, as you say, are
> > > > > more important - revising the XML encoding rules is cosmetic,
> > > > > not needed technically and, as I said, only make sense when the
> > > > > NETMOD WG has
> > > done
> > > > > its bit; and the revised charter being discussed on the NETMOD
> > > > > list makes no mention of this work.
> > > > >
> > > > > So scrap NETCONF XML encoding rules.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom Petch
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > > Such changes fall under the "maintaining" clauses in the NETMOD
> > > charter:
> > > >
> > > >   a) Maintaining the data modeling language YANG.  This effort
> entails
> > > >      periodically updating the specification to address new
> > > requirements
> > > >      as they arise.
> > > >
> > > >   d) Maintaining encodings for YANG modeled data.  This effort
> entails
> > > >      updating encodings already defined by the NETMOD working group
> > > >      (XML and JSON) to accommodate changes to the YANG specification,
> > > >      and defining new encodings that are needed, and yet do not fall
> > > >      under the charter of any other active IETF working group.
> > >
> > > Kent
> > >
> > > I was going to be sarcastic but resisted the temptation:-)
> > >
> > > I am unable to reconcile those paragraphs with
> > >
> > > 'NETCONF XML Encoding Rules from RFC 7950 will be moved to
> > > RFC6241bis.'
> > >
> > > To me, they are on different planets; one puts XML encoding rules in
> > > the NETCONF WG and the NETCONF RFC, the other places them in the
> > > NETMOD WG and the NETMOD RFC.
> > >
> >
> > YANG today defines the language plus its data encoding rules into XML
> > plus NETCONF protocol details that NETCONF did not define (and the
> > reason is simply that YANG was done after NETCONF and nothing else).
> >
> > I think the goal is to move the NETCONF protocol details that NETCONF
> > did not define to the NETCONF specification. Some may want to factor
> > out the XML encoding out of the YANG specification as well, similar to
> > how we have JSON as a separate document. On the hand hand this makes
> > sense, on the other hand it makes it a bit more difficult to write
> > examples down in the YANG specification (since the examples then
> > depend on another external specification - or one would have to create
> > yet another ad-hoc notation (YAAN).
> >
> > Back to your question, it seems obvious to me that YANG and the XML
> > encoding rules naturally belong to NETMOD, the 'NETCONF protocol
> > details that NETCONF did not define' naturally belong to NETCONF.
> >
> > /js
> >
> > --
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> > Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>