Re: [netconf] Should Partial Lock be deprecated?
Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net> Tue, 01 June 2021 12:53 UTC
Return-Path: <01000179c7a2ab19-82741952-87dd-4247-8f2f-01d3162863b6-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8F7C3A16CF for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 05:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.893
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.893 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mkAkWfg5VPuH for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 05:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a8-83.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-83.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1C4F3A16CE for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 05:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=ug7nbtf4gccmlpwj322ax3p6ow6yfsug; d=amazonses.com; t=1622551997; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=PJfaciXRuTaS+hHwtPZjRbgvslZLeWXiYHR+zmB+2O8=; b=Q8PdoNupxsKYgscimlrazisPhZtLyJGxJMExOb4AVud/7X2j3zkfidxDlHl65Lvw gNLmhpvJjzG3cuxsciQgadW0zOVjN+WuLv1prZMDydGQDyNjzMznDr1DlZNUXWL/XeA 3h8E4/R6FL/ZgYwx/DQhg/8IwV++xn//vLS6W8/w=
From: Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>
Message-ID: <01000179c7a2ab19-82741952-87dd-4247-8f2f-01d3162863b6-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0F1D7EDD-3B06-40D9-8336-1AA81FF444FD"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 12:53:17 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHS+fC1BE3kGopFhbxppo_5+uMbB6pi3NavxWzmZK+pWUg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
References: <CABCOCHS+fC1BE3kGopFhbxppo_5+uMbB6pi3NavxWzmZK+pWUg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
X-SES-Outgoing: 2021.06.01-54.240.8.83
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/yOLwuczW74MTLsOuzEgGcjYkjdU>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Should Partial Lock be deprecated?
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 12:53:24 -0000
Hi Andy, > I bet some do not remember we have this RFC > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5717 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5717> > (So old there is a normative XSD and non-normative YANG module). > > I have not seen this RFC used in several years. > Is anyone using it? > Should it be deprecated? > Just curious. As a contributor, I have never been a fan of this RFC. Significant complexity for a weak use case. Regarding the use case, my limited perspective is that rarely does more than one client access a server at a time (esp. when an NMS/orchestrator is in play) and, when it does occur, the access is typically for a brief amount of time, such that having a second client wait doesn’t seem a big deal. Applications vary, of course, with some (multi-tenant app, socials, etc.) being all about simultaneous access. To the extent these apps desire YANG-driven interfaces, I much prefer RESTCONF’s If-Match mechanism and would recommend porting it to NETCONF. > Andy K.
- [netconf] Should Partial Lock be deprecated? Andy Bierman
- Re: [netconf] Should Partial Lock be deprecated? Kent Watsen
- Re: [netconf] Should Partial Lock be deprecated? Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netconf] Should Partial Lock be deprecated? Per Andersson (perander)