Re: [netconf] Generic Capabilities model

+1

Regards,
Jeff

> On Dec 6, 2019, at 10:46, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> +1 for the generic capabilities work.
>  
> From: netconf <netconf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of 'Andy Bierman' <andy@yumaworks.com>
> Date: Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 4:44 PM
> To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com>
> Cc: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [netconf] Generic Capabilities model
>  
> Hi,
>  
> I strongly support this generic capabilities work.
> IMO this approach would make NMDA much easier for a client to support, since the new /yang-library
> would not be needed for this purpose.  Instead, a simple "nmda-operational" capability could be used in this module
> to easily identify which config=true nodes should be expected in <operational>.
>  
> The complexity in /yang-library might be justified if new writable datastores (like <ephemeral>) are
> ever introduced, but not for solving the problem "what features does this server support for the specified
> data node (resource)"?
>  
>  
> Andy
>  
>  
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:15 AM Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco..com> wrote:
> Hi Qin,
> 
> I would agree.
> I believe it's important to have a generic solution. I can picture more augmentations.
> The change is trivial IMO, i.e. modify the ietf-notification-capabilities model
> Rename the top level container to system-capabilities
> Add a container subscription-capabilities to the grouping subscription-capabilities to contain all subscription related capabilities
> Invite others to augment the model with similar groupings for other capabilities. 
> Regards, Benoit.
> 
> Hi, Balazs:
> In last IETF meeting, you offered a proposal in netmod session on notification capability change that was discussed in netmod session.
> I think it is a good idea to define generic capabilities model in draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-netmod-sessb-generic-model-for-server-capabilities-00
> since we have other capabilities that need to be covered, one of example such capability is one that can be self-described in
> draft-tao-netmod-yang-node-tags.
> With such new capability, should we augment from YANG Push model or should we augment from notification capability?
> We see one downside of augmenting from YANG Push model, is it only can be used in the running time, it can not be used in the design time or
> Implementation time.
>  
> So I think if one generic capability model can be defined, it will allow more flexibility to add new capability. However if we decide to take this approach,
> Probably notification capabilities draft require substantial changes to the current model structure. But I think it worth to do so, in my personal view.
>  
> -Qin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>  
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf