Re: [netmod] js review of draft-ietf-netmod-arch-05.txt

[Phil Shafer <[e-mail]>]

Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
>The workshop was not just attended by operators, see RFC 3535 for the
>details. The sentence in question talks about operators, not the
>workshop attendees and thus my question remains valid.

I'll change "operator's needs" to "observations".

>I thought we introduced the deviation statement since we believe a
>honest description of what an implementation does is worth to have.
>So if there are deviations, I think they should be documented. Or
>are you saying that it is better to not document them?

Nope, just that I think this needs to be discussed in the
section dedicated to it, instead of an brief mention earlier
in the doc.

>We do exactly this now to identify defaults in explicit config
>implementations - so if this is not workable, we should remove the
>attributes from with-defaults.

The other three options can be chosen and implemented within
the current NETCONF/YANG framework with little effort.  The
introduction of these attributes is not a valid choice for
the modeler.

In fact, the first option ("data models that explicitly differentiate
between configuration data and operational state data") is probably
the only realistic choice for modelers.

>My preference would be that 4.3 is not needed. However, since we do
>not seem to move into the direction of answering the question how we
>prefer to represent operational state, the second best choice for me
>still is to make the problem clear and to describe the solution space.
>This will help data modelers to understand the issue and pick one of
>the solutions.

Given that we can't agree sufficiently to give guidance, how will
this section help the typical modeler.  This section reads more
like an apologist view of why this issue is hard and why we didn't
decide, but I'm not sure that has any real value to our audience.

Perhaps the best fix is to add a conclusion that gives the "explicitly
differentiated" as the only realistic current answer and push
modelers in this direction.

Thanks,
 Phil