Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-06

[Balázs Lengyel <[e-mail]>]

OK, I will remove it.
Balazs

-----Original Message-----
From: netmod <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Martin Björklund
Sent: 2020. március 12., csütörtök 17:58
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; bclaise=[e-mail]
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call:
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-06

Hi

Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 06:58:53PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
> > Juergen,
> > 
> > On on side, Balazs mentions:
> > 
> > 4+ people asked me explicitly to state this similarity during the
> > development of the draft.
> > 
> > The current text is:
> > 
> >        P2  Instance data shall reuse existing encoding rules for YANG
> >            defined data.  Its format will be similar to the response of
a
> >            NETCONF <get> operation or the RESTCONF response to a GET
method
> >            invocation on the (unified) datastore resource.
> > 
> > This modification is based on your feedback:
> > 
> > Well, then the correct wording would be "similar to the response of 
> > a NETCONF <get> operation or the RESTCONF response to a GET method 
> > invocation on the (unified) datastore resource". Sounds complex and 
> > I still prefer the text to be agnostic to specific operations
> > 
> > On the other side, you insist now on removing the latter sentence.
> > Could you propose a similar sentence that would satisfy your concern?
> >
> 
> The new sentence is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Yeah, I suggested removal so the new sentence is empty.]

I agree with Juergen.  

I find the sentence about similarity confusing.  What exactly does "similar"
mean?  Does it mean that it has a <rpc-reply> on the top?

This section defines the prinicples / objectives, and the principle is
clear:

       Instance data shall reuse existing encoding rules for YANG
       defined data.


> PS: I do not mind if somewhere there is an example stated. But even
>     then I would prefer something like this:
> 
>       For example, instance data of the <running> configuration
>       datastore is encoded similar to the response of a NETCONF
>       <get-config> operation on the <running> datastore or a GET
>       method invocation on the <running> datastore resource and it
>       will be embedded into a container together with the metadata
>       describing the instance data.

Hmm.   If you really want to show how a reply to <get-config> compares
to a corresponding instance file, it might be better with an example that
shows a complete reply to this get-config, and the corresponding instance
data.


/martin



> 
>     (I prefer to avoid NETCONF GET and the RESTCONF unified datastore
>     since they have issues. But if people insist on an example using
>     operations that have issues, I will keep my mouth shut.)
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod