Re: [Netconf] Solicit comments on inline action capability for NETCONF

Hi Qin,

On 25/10/2018 14:30, Qin Wu wrote:
>
> *发件人:*Robert Wilton [mailto:rwilton@cisco.com]
> *发送时间:*2018年7月17日20:09
> *收件人:*Qin Wu; netconf@ietf.org
> *抄送:*Eric Voit (evoit)
> *主题:*Re: [Netconf] Solicit comments on inline action capability for 
> NETCONF
>
> Hi Qin,
>
> Having read this draft, I can understand what the draft is proposing, 
> but I don't currently understand why this is useful.  Specifically, I 
> don't find the example that is in the draft as compelling.  If the 
> desire is to set the MTU and enable the interface as one configuration 
> operation, then wouldn't the client just configure both mtu and 
> enabled leaves at the same time.  Why is a separate action required 
> here to enable the interface?
>
> So I'm struggling to think of actions that apply to configuration 
> datastores where the same behaviour cannot just be achieved via a 
> simple configuration manipulation.  One use case could be wanting to 
> repeat the same configuration on many interfaces at the same time, but 
> for this, I think that a configuration templating solution would be 
> preferable rather than using actions, and a templating would probably 
> just reused edit-config/edit-data.  So, if you have some other more 
> concrete examples of actions that apply to configuration datastores, 
> that might be helpful.
>
> [Qin]: Come back for this discussion. One typical example is Configure 
> multiple UserVLANTag range on trunk interface Ethernet0/0
>
> UserVLANTag Range 1 [1,5]
>
> UserVLANTag Range [6,10]
>
> Using configuration template to replicate multiple copies on the same 
> interface from the client to the server result in a significant amount 
> of signaling traffic(e.g,edit-config operation related to protocol 
> message) on a periodic basis, in this example, we require 10 time 
> exchange between the client and the server(device).
>
I'm sorry, but I don't follow this example.  Why can't this be done as a 
single edit-config request that updates all the VLANs in a single message?

Thanks,
Rob

> With inline action, we can introduce bulk operation, so we only need 
> to send one protocol message for such bulk operatio, configuration 
> template can also be used in this case, the difference is 
> configuration template is only used within the server, which is more 
> efficient.
>
> Another question (which I think is similar to the one that Eric has 
> also asked) is whether to have transactions that mix configuration 
> operations and action operations on <operational>.  E.g. perhaps 
> enable an interface and reset the counters at the same time, or 
> perform some config change and establish a dynamic subscription at the 
> same time.  But I question how robust this would end up being (I'm not 
> generally a fan of distributed transactions - they never seem to be as 
> robust as they claim to be).  Perhaps one for future thought and 
> discussion.
>
> [Qin]: Withdraw such case.
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
> On 03/07/2018 22:01, Qin Wu wrote:
>
>     Hi, Folks:
>
>     We have posted inline action capability draft on Jun 28:
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg14823.html
>
>     One comment we received from the list is:
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg14863.html
>
>     The v-(01) is uploaded to address this comment.
>
>     Therefore we would like to draw you attention again on this draft
>
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-netconf-inline-action-capability-01
>
>     We would like to receive more review and feedback on this draft,
>     thanks.
>
>     -Qin
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Netconf mailing list
>
>     Netconf@ietf.org <mailto:Netconf@ietf.org>
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>