Re: [netmod] [Netconf] comments to draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-01 on the IETF98 meeting

"Susan Hares" <> Tue, 28 March 2017 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05D4E120725; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.946
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QQiZhurALvrB; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7868128D40; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: "Susan Hares" <>
To: "'Mahesh Jethanandani'" <>, "'Zhengguangying \(Walker\)'" <>
Cc: <>, <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:52:43 -0400
Message-ID: <018501d2a7db$56bcdce0$043696a0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0186_01D2A7B9.CFAD86D0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHV+57pm+O7m2DpepyVFy9a0GpMZQK2NQowoY4NmuA=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Netconf] comments to draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-01 on the IETF98 meeting
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: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:57:44 -0000

I2RS Topology modules are being design to work in configuration datastore or
I2RS datastore. 




From: Netconf [] On Behalf Of Mahesh
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 11:30 AM
To: Zhengguangying (Walker)
Subject: Re: [Netconf] comments to draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-01
on the IETF98 meeting



On Mar 28, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Zhengguangying (Walker)
<> wrote:


Hi Martin,


      My comments is why it need YANG modules change there definition?
datastore is the conception of system datastore mechinism,  we can use
filter or common top level YANG modul to support multi datastore.

     But, if ask YANG modules to change their definition to use split tree,
it will bound the datastore logic to YANG modules, it not looks like a good
idea,  because all YANG modules should change and know the datastore.


I do not think there is anything in the proposal that says that YANG modules
will be bound to a particular datastore, or that they need to know about the
different datastores a particular implementation supports.


The suggestion to collapse the config and state part of the tree is to avoid
data getting duplicated as a result of implementation of the new datastore



     So, my suggestion is not sue split tree in YANG modules, but support it
by netconf or another new TOP level YANG module.




Zheng guangying (walker)  From Huawei

Netconf mailing list


Mahesh Jethanandani