Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Robert Wilton <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 07/09/2017 03:36, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >     >> /netconf-state and /restconf-state don't seem to follow the general
> >     >> pattern we're correcting with the various NMDA updates. 
> >     Particularly,
> >     >> these -state trees are NOT for the purpose to providing the opstate
> >     >> value for configured nodes.  These modules have the misfortune of
> >     >> having "-state" in their name, but they're otherwise fine.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > This contradicts some details we have been told about NMDA
> >     >
> >     > 1) the transition guidelines say otherwise
> >     >
> >     > New modules and modules that are not concerned with the
> >     > operational state of configuration information SHOULD
> >     > immediately be structured to be NMDA-compatible
> >
> >     Yes, I'm suggesting we give ourselves some leeway, by taking
> >     advantage of the SHOULD keyword above and defer updating these
> >     two modules to when it makes more sense to do so.
> >
> >
> >
> > OK -- good.
> > I think another sentence needs to be added.
> >
> >
> > NMDA compatibility conversion MAY be deferred if the module
> > does not contain any configuration datastore objects.
> I agree.

+1


> >     > 2) RD defines operational state to include config=false nodes
> >     > such as counters, so these modules are properly named.
> >
> >     module-name == top-level node name.  Either way, my point is that
> >     the -state tree in these modules is not trying to provide the
> >     opstate value for configured nodes (i.e. applied configuration).
> >
> >
> > So a data node naming convention is needed?
> > And a module naming convention?
> >
> > We need a rule that says the suffix "-state" is reserved for NMDA
> > compatibility
> > so module names and data nodes SHOULD NOT be named with an identifier
> > that
> > ends in this suffix.
> Also agree.

-1

There are cases where a -state suffix is natural, e.g. in
ietf-hardware we have admin-state, oper-state, usage-state etc.

I prefer to have a recommendation that generated modules and top-level
nodes are called ...-state, but that should not be a reason for making
-state illegal in general.


/martin