Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

Sue:

I do not understand your question. Neither a) nor b) make sense to me
nor do I see how any of these relate to the discussion about mounts.

/js

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 10:09:53AM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> 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:[e-mail]] 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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 3:52 AM
> To: Eric Voit (evoit) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Alexander Clemm <[e-mail]>; Andy Bierman
> <[e-mail]>; Netconf <[e-mail]>
> 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: [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
> 

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>