Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23 (until Sep 9, 2016)

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> writes:

>>    Then you probably already know what the solution is going to be. I don't.
>
> It’s not that I know the exact solution.  It’s that I see this
> approach offering good options for graceful migration to an opstate
> compliant solution (for which I’m on the design team alias), without
> incurring any modelling cost, other than there being an additional
> module.  I additionally see this approach as more flexible in that, as
> you said, it would allow one module to be updated without disturbing
> the other.

The data modelling cost of splitting config and state data into
separate modules IMO is that it weakens the concept of system- and
user-controlled objects. I understand that some folks don't like it but
I am still not convinced that anything better is readily available.

And then of course another cost is that all modules depending on
ietf-routing need to be updated accordingly. So IMO we should think
twice before making this change. I would appreciate more opinions on it.

Lada

>
>
>> Anyway, if the consensus was to split config and state data into separate modules, we would have to tell all module developers who build upon the core routing model to split their augments into config and state parts as well, because otherwise the change to ietf-routing would be useless.  
>
> Yes, indeed, this would be the primary consequence.
>
>
>>    Lada
>
> Kent
>
>

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C