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

Rohit R Ranade <> Wed, 09 May 2018 09:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5405F12EB1B for <>; Wed, 9 May 2018 02:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sqwEHchfe3pb for <>; Wed, 9 May 2018 02:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFBDA127241 for <>; Wed, 9 May 2018 02:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 22FD7B4BCD056; Wed, 9 May 2018 10:12:22 +0100 (IST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Wed, 9 May 2018 10:12:23 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Wed, 9 May 2018 17:12:12 +0800
From: Rohit R Ranade <>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] Query about draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06
Thread-Index: AQHT519Lh2VAkGc+h06X2TPb9R04RKQnGvNA
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 09:12:12 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <20180509063034.iclb6vbbua5nqu6p@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20180509063034.iclb6vbbua5nqu6p@elstar.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Query about draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 09:12:28 -0000

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


Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <>