Re: [Netconf] health of NETCONF

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

On 01/03/2017 11:04, t.petch wrote:
> 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.
OK.  I had, perhaps incorrectly, assumed that the same experts are 
participating in both WGs, and the split was more for a division of 
labour rather than differing areas of expertise.

Rob


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