[netmod] Re: comments on system-config-08 draft

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 8:12 AM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Andy,
>
> > So you are planning new protocol versions with NBC changes as well?
>
> Yes.  The NETCONF WG already kicked-off (sort of) the NETCONF-next and
> RESTCONF-next efforts.  The “plan” is to first publish a BC (backwards
> compatible) version of the protocols to address low-hanging items, and then
> an NBC versions to align with YANG-next.
>
> The question is if telling the client that it “running alone MAY be valid”
> (was “MUST") can be in the BC update.  Technically, there is no change to
> the protocol on the wire, it’s only a change in how the client processing,
> so maybe okay for NC1.2 / RC1.1?
>
>
Changing the running config so it is split into 2 datastores makes
operations more complicated.
It doesn't actually work since YANG is hierarchical and has
cross-references.

IMO the only improvement needed is to add metadata to <running> so a client
can
better understand the system config and make edit requests that will not
fail.

Most deployment (90%?) is non-NMDA and it will probably stay that way.
The developer focus is on data model deployment, not redoing the
foundation. IMO people want YANG to
be simpler and faster. I don't see how splitting config up into 2
datastores helps.



> Kent // as a contributor
>
>
Andy