Re: [Netconf] health of NETCONF

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

From: "Robert Wilton" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 10:45 AM
> Hi Tom,
>
> On 01/03/2017 09:58, t.petch wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[e-mail]
> > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 10:14 PM
> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 09:44:06PM +0100, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
> >>
> >>> 6. Revise the current NETCONF datastore concept as a protocol- and
> > modeling
> >>> language-independent standard as part of the network configuration
> >>> framework. Use the datastore solution proposal in
> >>> draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores as its basis. Will be used as
a
> >>> normative reference in protocol specifications.
> >> There is no point in dupliating work in WGs that have a common
history
> >> and a common set of active contributors.
> > Juergen
> >
> > I am not sure what you are proposing;  Currently, datastores are
poorly
> > described in RFC6241 and RFC7950 and the publication of another
> > incomplete description in the shape of
> > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores
> > will likely make things worse.
> >
> > I see a need for a datastores RFC, probably separate from the
current
> > specifications, and do see the NETCONF WG as better placed to do it.
>
> I see that datastores and YANG are directly linked.  Specifically, I
> think that the "config" statement, and any future I2RS related
> "ephemeral" statement (or extension) give the data nodes in a YANG
data
> model particular semantics in the different datastores.
>
> So, I sort of see the document hierarchy should be something like:
>
>     Datastores architecture
>              ^
>              |                    (NETMOD WG)
>         YANG language
>         ^          ^
>         |          |
>         |   Encodings of YANG data trees
>         |               (XML, JSON, CBOR)
>         |                    ^
>    -  - |-  -  -  -  -  -  - |-  -  -  -  -  -
>         |                    |    (NETCONF WG)
>      Common protocol abstraction
> (that all YANG protocols should conform to).
>      ^             ^            ^
>      |             |            |
>   RESTCONF      NETCONF        CoMI
>
> So, for the split of work between NETMOD and NETCONF, my thoughts are
> that basically the work above the dotted line should be done in
NETMOD,
> and the work below the line should be done in NETCONF.  Of course,
some
> of the work may be done in other WGs (CoMI, I2RS, etc).
>
> >
> > I think that the rush to  get
> > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores
> > out is militating against the long term health of NETCONF.
>
> Please can you clarify, do you mean long term health of the NETCONF
WG,
> or the NETCONF RFC, or the NETCONF protocol?

I mean NETCONF the means of doing network configuration, so that
includes the protocol as defined in RFC6241, datastores as defined in
RFC6241 and the existence of a data modelling language and data models
written therein.  Essentially, the problem that the NETCONF WG was set
up to solve.

The weakness I see is the lack of a Standards Track architecture or
framework or some such which would likely have datastores at its heart;
and, unlike you, I see the expertise for that in the NETCONF WG and not
in the NETMOD WG.

Tom Petch

> Thanks,
> Rob
>
>
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> >> /js
> >>