Re: [netmod] datastore conformance

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I am aware how YANG identities work.
Let the market decide.  Good enough.


Andy


On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Phil Shafer <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Andy Bierman writes:
> >The YANG definitions defined for NETCONF and RESTCONF operations do not
> actually
> >require the "real" datastore identities to be used by a server.
>
> The identities are defined in the YANG modules contained in the
> NMDA draft (draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores).  The protocol-specific
> drafts (draft-dsdt-nmda-netconf and draft-dsdt-nmda-restconf)
> describe protocols operations that use these identities, such as
> the <source> parameter to <get-data>.  The YANG library draft
> (draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library) allows the server to indicate
> which datastores are supported.
>
> >The server implementor
> >has the freedom to replace all of the standard datastores with
> proprietary definitions.
>
> Yes.  The implementation can also choose not to support any
> conventional datastores, allowing only, say, some new dynamic
> datastore.  Clients can learn this via YANG Library.
>
> In the end, I've confidence that the market place will give limited
> success to servers that make funky and weird choices.  We all
> understand that most-common behaviors are most desirable, but forcing
> a limit on such things is imho counter productive.
>
> >While this provides unlimited flexibility for the server, it also
> provides unlimited
> >complexity for the client.
>
> "unlimited"?
>
> >I think the existing :candidate, :writable-running, and :startup
> capabilities cover
> >the standard conventional datastores.
>
> Yes, these capabilities allow a client to know that a server supports
> a datastore, but not what it can contain.  It's not sufficient
> information.  The client needs the YANG library information to
> have meaningful interaction with a server.
>
> >IMO the MUST be a new capability for the :operational datastore and the
> >exact identityref and semantics for this datastore MUST be supported
> >if the :operational:1.0 capability is advertised.
>
> What does a new capability give that YANG library does not?
>
> I don't follow the bit about "the exact identityref and semantics
> for this datastore".  Is your concern that I could make a follow-on
> to <operational> that derives from the operational identity?
>
> >Both NETCONF and RESTCONF can list capabilities so both protocols can
> advertise
> >this capability URI.
>
> Same for YANG Library, right?
>
> Thanks,
>  Phil
>