IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netmod-ver-dt] Current slides

"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> Fri, 22 March 2019 11:13 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netmod-ver-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod-ver-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38707130DE7 for <netmod-ver-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 04:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 j-GgsyZ-y9ak for <netmod-ver-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 04:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A388E12426E for <netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 04:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=17891; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1553253221; x=1554462821; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=7TQ9edc3OdRFAA+YiRkRUp2YPbOjPsyT4ze7gwdp4Ws=; b=bPq2qR4JOZZ/DFqSAIbaHNmZkvAkzgaXpLi3VihVvTI2OjTWmw3QKloH V8NPr9jyZqV7dolGy6ISFlA25kyUQshviz0V8rPUo8dNmYfsnRp+UGFoZ 9G6qafrk5yOdNaOsQ1NVOBtUpBmRMim84YSk4YNnbfs4muWH9IKbY52RV E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AEAACrwpRc/5tdJa1jGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBUQUBAQEBCwGBDlgqaIEDJwqEBIgcjSyYOIF7DQEBhGwCF4RkIjQJDQEBAwEBCQEDAm0ohUoBAQEELVwCAQYCDgMEAQEoBQICMBQJCAEBBAESCBODCIERZI05m2AIgS2KNIEvAYsxF4FAP4ERgxI+hC4tH4JQglsDimaGIZQECQKTLiGCAYV8i36LGIEXkgwCERWBLh84KIEucBWDJ4IWF4EAAQiNFUExjR6BHwEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,256,1549929600"; d="scan'208,217";a="250061710"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 22 Mar 2019 11:13:40 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (xch-aln-008.cisco.com [173.36.7.18]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x2MBDeER015278 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 22 Mar 2019 11:13:40 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-007.cisco.com (173.37.102.17) by XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 06:13:39 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-007.cisco.com ([173.37.102.17]) by XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com ([173.37.102.17]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 06:13:39 -0500
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org" <netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Current slides
Thread-Index: AdTgnYfpWJoj28jtSYu/48cxa0GbGgAAgolw
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 11:13:39 +0000
Message-ID: <36cd1b679039412a9ab45e64e9e22e7a@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9B2F93BC@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9B2F93BC@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.61.76.6]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_36cd1b679039412a9ab45e64e9e22e7aXCHRCD007ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.18, xch-aln-008.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod-ver-dt/VpbVY0kAb7FMssVvNN3kvtFnGuI>
Subject: Re: [Netmod-ver-dt] Current slides
X-BeenThere: netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NetMod WG YANG Model Versioning Design Team <netmod-ver-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod-ver-dt>, <mailto:netmod-ver-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod-ver-dt/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-ver-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod-ver-dt>, <mailto:netmod-ver-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 11:13:44 -0000

Hi Qin, please see RW inline …

From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Sent: 22 March 2019 10:54
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Current slides

Two quick comments on slides:
Page 11:  Could we link Schema Comparison Tooling to draft-wang-netmod-module-revision-management, Michale told me he has some update.
[RW]
I don’t think that is the approach that has been envisaged when discussing this problem.  draft-wang-netmod-module-revision-management currently describes something quite different (i.e. a method for a server to report scheme differences), and hence would be confusing to reference here.


Page 21
“3.1 The solution MUST provide a mechanism to allow servers to support existing clients in a backwards-compatible way.
”
I feel this requirement may introduce some ambiguity, e.g.,whether it is protocol backwards-compatibility or model version backwards compatibility.
[RW]
This is just quoting the text verbatim from the requirements draft.

Would it be good to distinguish one from another.
Page 24:
Not clear what NETCONF/RESTCONF instances means? NETCONF/RESTCONF session or connection? Do we have reference for this term?
[RW]
From the client perspective this means available on a separate port number, or perhaps URL (in the case of RESTCONF).

Page 23, Page 24,
Page 23 said
“
Servers are NOT required to concurrently support clients using different schema versions
”
Page 24 said:
“
Servers support configuration for secondary NETCONF/RESTCONF instances (using different port numbers) which use a different schema-set version
”
Does these two statements have some contradiction. Maye it is okay since the statement in page 23 indicate allow server to concurrently support clients.
[RW]
This just means that servers can support multiple NETCONF/RESTCONF protocol instances, but are not obliged to do so.  Hopefully Reshad can make this clear when he speaks about this.

Thanks,
Rob



-Qin
发件人: Netmod-ver-dt [mailto:netmod-ver-dt-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Rob Wilton (rwilton)
发送时间: 2019年3月21日 22:22
收件人: netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org>
主题: [Netmod-ver-dt] Current slides

Hi,

This is hopefully the combined set of slides, if anyone would like to review them before today’s meeting.

Thanks,
Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email