[netmod] Re: comments on system-config-08 draft

["maqiufang (A)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Andy,


Changing the running config so it is split into 2 datastores makes operations more complicated.
It doesn't actually work since YANG is hierarchical and has cross-references.

IMO the only improvement needed is to add metadata to <running> so a client can
better understand the system config and make edit requests that will not fail.

Most deployment (90%?) is non-NMDA and it will probably stay that way.
The developer focus is on data model deployment, not redoing the foundation. IMO people want YANG to
be simpler and faster. I don't see how splitting config up into 2 datastores helps.

I am not sure I agree this draft is “changing the running config so it is split into 2 datastores”.

I think it is already the case that NMDA never puts system configuration into <running>, it’s only in <operational>. So has NMDA already made NBC changes to the behavior of non-NMDA servers? If you know any existing standards that say system configuration is defined in <running>, I would appreciate that if you could help navigate, as I’ve always thought putting system configuration into <running> is just one of the existing various proprietary implementations, our implementation used to be this way, but not now, after some customers complained that they don’t want to see some system config magically appeared when they write some config into <running> and then read back, and there are other reasons like performance.


Best Regards,
Qiufang