Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

Alex and Juergen: 

Clarifying question - Do I understand that Juergen does not want
RESTCONF/NETCONF to be querying anything but: 
a) the applied configuration part of the applied data store, and 
b) the operational state resulting from schema's that configuration work on?

Sue Hares

-----Original Message-----
From: Netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Clemm
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 1:27 PM
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Eric Voit (evoit)
Cc: Netconf
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

Hi Jurgen,

I responded to the earlier message without seeing this. 

Quick comment below, <ALEX>

--- Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 3:52 AM
To: Eric Voit (evoit) <evoit@cisco.com>
Cc: Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>; Andy Bierman
<andy@yumaworks.com>; Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 11:05:53AM +0000, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:
> 
> 
> > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder, March 3, 2017 4:24 AM
> > 
> > On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 01:01:10AM +0000, Alexander Clemm wrote:
> > >
> > > An operator doesn't want external systems to individually address 
> > > every
> > control plane VM.  Rather they want a YANG model for this
> > logical+physical combination.  In this case each VM might use Peer
> > (data) Mount to build a multi-device abstraction.  BTW: doing it 
> > this way also allows the same mounted YANG object data to be 
> > addressably exposed for each VM without requiring another YANG model to
be made.
> > >
> > 
> > My question since the very beginning is: Is the idea to run 
> > configuration editing transactions across mount points?
> 
> My position is that there is huge value in read only access.  I have no
desire to champion edit operations. 
>

Reading data of course has value but then NETCONF has this little 'CONF' in
its name...

<ALEX>This does not prevent network to have operational state (and applied
datastore) in its scope... </ALEX>

Anyway, if the peer mount is designed as a read-only access mechanism, how
are the VMs then configured? I suppose there then needs to be a different
addressing mechanism to access the VM's configuration data, e.g., something
Andy was hinting at. Or how does this work?

<ALEX> The authoritative owner is still the mount server, i.e. the system
from which information is mounted.  I agree with Eric, no desire to champion
cross-network edit operations/transaction, and still a lot of value in
having read access from other systems.  </ALEX>

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf