Re: [netconf] Generic Capabilities model

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi Qin,

I would agree.
I believe it's important to have a generic solution. I can picture more 
augmentations.
The change is trivial IMO, i.e. modify the 
ietf-notification-capabilities model

  * Rename the top level container to system-capabilities
  * Add a container subscription-capabilities to the grouping
    subscription-capabilities to contain all subscription related
    capabilities
  * Invite others to augment the model with similar groupings for other
    capabilities.

Regards, Benoit.

> Hi, Balazs:
>
> In last IETF meeting, you offered a proposal in netmod session on 
> notification capability change that was discussed in netmod session.
>
> I think it is a good idea to define generic capabilities model in 
> draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-netmod-sessb-generic-model-for-server-capabilities-00
>
> since we have other capabilities that need to be covered, one of 
> example such capability is one that can be self-described in
>
> draft-tao-netmod-yang-node-tags 
> <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-tao-netmod-yang-node-tags-00.txt>.
>
> With such new capability, should we augment from YANG Push model or 
> should we augment from notification capability?
>
> We see one downside of augmenting from YANG Push model, is it only can 
> be used in the running time, it can not be used in the design time or
>
> Implementation time.
>
> So I think if one generic capability model can be defined, it will 
> allow more flexibility to add new capability. However if we decide to 
> take this approach,
>
> Probably notification capabilities draft require substantial changes 
> to the current model structure. But I think it worth to do so, in my 
> personal view.
>
> -Qin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf