[Netconf] {+restconf}/data vs <running>
Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Wed, 26 September 2018 10:45 UTC
Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
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 94105130E71 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 03:45:34 -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] 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 5jKR51bGMEvk for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 03:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from trail.lhotka.name (trail.lhotka.name [77.48.224.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60363130E53 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 03:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix, from userid 109) id 510E118202D9; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:53:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (nat-2.nic.cz [217.31.205.2]) by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 07CF01820057 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:53:07 +0200 (CEST)
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 12:45:26 +0200
Message-ID: <87lg7osfjt.fsf@nic.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/lYxxP32XnihS6LblMuY57ymQQos>
Subject: [Netconf] {+restconf}/data vs <running>
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: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 10:45:35 -0000
Hi,
draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf is silent about the relationship
between the {+restconf}/data and the <running> datastore, and it cannot
be deduced from RFC 8040 either, because it only says in sec. 3.3.1:
This mandatory resource [{+restconf}/data] represents the combined
configuration and state data resources that can be accessed by a
client.
I think this is a serious omission.
Regarding draft-lhotka-netconf-restconf-transactions-00, I received a
lot of criticism for changing the semantics of
{+restconf}/data. However, I don't think it was the case: according to
the above definition, it seems perfectly OK if {+restconf}/data
represents combined configuration **from <staging>** and state data.
Lada
--
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
- [Netconf] {+restconf}/data vs <running> Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [Netconf] {+restconf}/data vs <running> Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] {+restconf}/data vs <running> Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] {+restconf}/data vs <running> Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [Netconf] {+restconf}/data vs <running> Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [Netconf] {+restconf}/data vs <running> Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] {+restconf}/data vs <running> Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [Netconf] {+restconf}/data vs <running> Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] {+restconf}/data vs <running> Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [Netconf] {+restconf}/data vs <running> Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] {+restconf}/data vs <running> Qin Wu