Re: [netmod] schema mount situation and next steps

Benoit Claise <> Tue, 20 March 2018 10:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA5212E8C6 for <>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 03:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cYkFF3BRhG12 for <>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 03:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D9EA12702E for <>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 03:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=10166; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1521543389; x=1522752989; h=subject:from:to:references:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=qhhU4ggt4mWt82XgpvZ/hWUJyjDbncK2/ZeWLZivB3o=; b=f+J8DxExMr8Xy/iTCvk4qSENc5yQZH48IJQFx8Jv2mmKwcfuXvRG2etJ LAXMHzHX8xdFhYOBTPzb19VHgzxLsZLjU2B16RhZzmHz7A+mB8siEM2J4 T5OxmV72Iq+TMcbJJbJA0X5PBJlGYj4TsVFCHhqQsgb1da01yKlrIN/iR c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AMAQBq57Ba/xbLJq1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYQ2ciiDXYodcoxXggQLgSQbjniFDxSBfgsYAQqEIU0Cg2k0GAE?= =?us-ascii?q?CAQEBAQEBAmsohSYCBAEBIUsbC0ICAicwBg0GAgEBFgGEfw+oQYImJoRIg3CCC?= =?us-ascii?q?QWFN4NqgVMBKAyBZFUzgkBeAQEBgS0EFAEBgyaCYQOHUZBsCY8zB4gchRqLAYU?= =?us-ascii?q?5gSoeOIFSMxoIGxU6gkOCMhuOHkA0AY4rgjoBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,335,1517875200"; d="scan'208,217";a="2723490"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Mar 2018 10:56:27 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w2KAuPwi018406 for <>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:56:26 GMT
From: Benoit Claise <>
To: NETMOD Working Group <>
References: <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:56:25 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------85A5F3A8F43804DB5BB04114"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] schema mount situation and next steps
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, 20 Mar 2018 10:57:10 -0000

Dear all,

Some recent news regarding the schema mount.
Sometimes, magic happens when people speak to each others face to face.
It did happen this week and there is a new schema mount plan that should 
make everybody a little bit happier.
The second NETMOD  session (Wednesday) will exclusively focus on the 
schema mount.

Regards, Benoit (OPS AD)
> Dear all,
> In the last two weeks, I've been multiplying the schema mount discussions.
> It's now time to draw the conclusions and to move on.
> I'm sad that schema-mount is not NMDA compliant. We approved 
> RFC6087bis with the NMDA transition guidelines.
> I'm sad that progression to IETF-LC has not been completed on the 
> schema-mount document since the WGLC in November.
> As discussed with the document shepherd Joel, there is not a strong 
> support position for the schema mount document (version 08), but rough 
> consensus. The interaction with YANG library bis has been noted during 
> the WGLC. What happened since that WGLC closure on Nov6th is that the 
> people position became tougher and that multiple possible tracks have 
> been investigated. I believe we heard the arguments from everybody.
> Taking my AD responsibilities, what's next?
> 1. We have been losing so much time (which I regret) since the WGLC 
> that publishing 08 now makes sense, solving one aspect of the problem: 
> the situation where the set of YANG modules is the same in all 
> datastores. Is this perfect solution? Certainly not.
> The LNE and NI documents, in the RFC editor queue, depend on the 
> version 8 of schema mount.
> So let's pursue that publication path.
> 2. The document 08 should be edited before requesting the publication.
> - The draft should be clearly specified that this solution is not 
> fully NMDA complaint. For example, in the abstract
> - The draft should mention an applicability statement, such as the one 
> the chairs proposed:
>     This work was produced during the period when NMDA solutions were being
>     developed in parallel. While the model defined in this document can be
>     used with both NMDA and non-NMDA supporting implementations, there are
>     limitations in its NMDA applicability. When used with Yang Library
>     [RFC7895] only non-NMDA implementations can be supported. When used with
>     the revised Yang Library defined in [I.D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis], NMDA
>     implementations can be supported with certain limitations. Specifically,
>     this document requires use of the now deprecated module-list grouping,
>     and the same schema represented in schema list of ietf-schema-mount MUST
>     be used in all datastores. Inline type mount points, which don't use the
>     schema list, don't have this limitation as they  can support different
>     schema in different datastores by instantiating the
>     [I.D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis] version of YANG library under the inline
>     mount point. A future revision of this work is expected to provide for
>     full NMDA support.
> - Some edits are needed: the nits from the YD review
> Another one, addressing one of Lada's important complaints.
>     The use of mount points does not impact the nature of the mounted data
>     or in which datastore information is made available. For example, the
>     datastore from which YANG Library module information may be obtained is
>     not impacted by the use of schema mount.  This is case for both the top
>     level YANG Library module and any YANG Library modules included under a
>     mount point. The Schema Mount module itself MUST be present in the same
>     datastore as the YANG Library module.
> Next, we want to work on a NMDA solution, based on the pre-09 version 
> ... I guess.
> This solution will obsolete the current 08 document and reference the 
> YANG library bis.
> Let's dedicate the full second NETMOD session (on Wednesday) to schema 
> mount and let's use our energy to focus on the best solution.
> Regards, Benoit (as OPS AD)
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list