IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 03 August 2016 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D40F12D7C0 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 11:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.808
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JXlQvC37FVsY for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 11:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7515E12D7AA for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 11:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2542; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1470249475; x=1471459075; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=cld9KVHE7XUfRQXkYAz8iIgJsfr9LY5of7uXOND2zXw=; b=LVBZNPzjwYHD2ju+4sY+anWdHq+EhDUDLVOtutkeyLsmaniD1SKLCdUK QOxi6fp5Imcn5Rr+VQTIRhOT+D1rGZoYf7UfQPIJvwu9Y6tYCB8quOReA 8TL2vsbiupAbVsvum7O7Qr2g/rIlRSzoIHkYwXp/Wl5TIHwTbXbVvUMVV o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0A4AgCsOKJX/5BdJa1dg0VWfAe5KoF9JIUvSgIcgTA4FAEBAQEBAQFdJ4RfAQUBASEROgsQAgEIGAICJgICAiULFRACBAENBRmIGA6vMY9/AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFwWBAYl2hBIKBwEcF4JqgloFmTQBjn6PQIwwg3YBHjaDem6HFQ8XIH8BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,466,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="304928456"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Aug 2016 18:37:54 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com (xch-rtp-010.cisco.com [64.101.220.150]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u73IbsMn003285 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 Aug 2016 18:37:54 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com (64.101.220.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 14:37:53 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 14:37:53 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, Balazs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount
Thread-Index: AQHR7Nww0Wi3xAkXLk+F7Qwy4jNZ96A3D5IAgAAlNwCAAF3CAA==
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 18:37:53 +0000
Message-ID: <D3C7B1A4.7482A%acee@cisco.com>
References: <bed9398c-0e6a-450e-d2ac-b381b6bebf87@cisco.com> <5296754B-8178-4B1B-B4A6-FE228ABB8E7F@juniper.net> <9367f4b1-7814-e175-32e8-d518438b841d@cisco.com> <m24m79c1ja.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz> <D3BF8708.72620%acee@cisco.com> <552008CB-F216-4578-A709-AE0613C2EFB9@nic.cz> <12ed1a4d-44c5-9a51-b6d4-95e1620a24ee@cisco.com> <m260roedim.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz> <CABCOCHRF98sTa=MA1VTkZovOufL-=yQr9Gzy+ojnncjSfK1y0Q@mail.gmail.com> <e307c2fc-e621-b5c6-4fcc-67bbcdcb87b9@cisco.com> <20160729163220.GA3579@elstar.local> <68421198-703c-bb26-0fcc-f560e6fe108d@ericsson.com> <100B5D71-C23E-4C72-9EA2-2DB6574DEB87@nic.cz> <5153eab1-8d87-6e3c-3b54-441f683695e4@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5153eab1-8d87-6e3c-3b54-441f683695e4@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.198]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <3BAED854F6B9CF47AA605FF8A1FD46AD@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/L5ZGevAf4sJJcxg-TdnBoZWmP9k>
Cc: netmod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 18:37:57 -0000


On 8/3/16, 5:02 AM, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton -X (rwilton -
ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of
rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:

>
>
>On 03/08/2016 07:49, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>> On 02 Aug 2016, at 18:35, Balazs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>> If we allow foo and foo-state for opstate, mounting models atop such a
>>>multi rooted yang module will be fun.
>>> mount modB-config-part onto modA-config-part
>>> mount modB-state-part onto modA-state-part
>>> One mount becomes two and you have to maintain parallel mounts
>>>otherwise you are mounting half modules.
>> This is already happenning with augments. It means some work but
>>nothing terribly complex.
>>
>>> Actually the problem is not caused by opstate, but rather by
>>>multi-rooted models. but avoiding foo-state would make life easier once
>>>more.
>> We already agreed that some items (such as RIBs) are "true" state which
>>don't have direct counterparts in configuration. If we don't have
>>foo-state, where are these supposed to be placed?
>One choice is that they could just be placed under foo, where foo is a
>config false leaf.

While there is a NETCONF/RESTCONF incompatibility with config-false data
nodes under config-true data nodes, there is no problem with the reverse -
correct? 

Thanks,
Acee




>
>Rob
>
>
>>
>> Lada
>>
>>> regards Balazs
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
>>> Senior Specialist
>>> Mobile: +36-70-330-7909              email: Balazs.Lengyel@ericsson.com
>>>
>> --
>> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
>> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>netmod mailing list
>netmod@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email