Re: [netmod] Query about draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06

[Rohit R Ranade <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 02:31:15AM +0000, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> 
> 1.       "import-only-module" is currently under the "module-set" list. How does the client benefit by learning which module-set imports which modules ?

              All non import-only modules of the schema are implemented
              with their associated features and deviations.

Modules in module-set/module are modules a datastore referencing the module set implements, modules in module-set/import-only-module are modules a datastore referencing the module set only imports from.
 
> 2.       Whether we can keep the "import-only-module" as a sibling to module-set. And let it list all the imported modules.

A module set is a self contained set of modules and import only modules.

[Rohit R Ranade] One use-case I thought of was that a client was concerned with only some data-stores. So they can download the schema of only those modules and their imported modules of their data-stores of interest. But if this was the case, then the "checksum" is of no use to them, as they will not know whether their intended data-store changed or not. Is there any other use-case for the import-only-module being part of module-set ?

> 3.  Section 3 mentions the text  "A common use case is the operational state datastore schema which is a
>   superset of the schema used by conventional configuration datastores. ". ==> I think it should be "maybe a superset" based on Point 3 of "Objectives" section.

Perhaps 'which is commonly a superset'. But note that the point 3 in the objectives also covers any future datastores such as ephemeral datastores what may have data models that do not relate to <operational>.
[Rohit R Ranade] I agree, your suggestion for this change is better. 

> 4.       Also I feel the text about "netconf-capability-change" notification based on yang-library checksum should be moved to the NETCONF NMDA draft.  Is it not more suitable there ?

The reason is that NMDA is a very generic architectural document and as such it should not detail specifics of concrete notifications.
These details belong into the specific documents. The NMDA document is a root of a document dependency tree, we should not create a mesh of document dependencies.
[Rohit R Ranade] Please note I mentioned " should be moved to the NETCONF NMDA draft ", by which I meant draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-05, not the RFC 8342

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>