Re: [netmod] [netconf] RE: pls clarify get operation

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Sat, 29 June 2019 12:43 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 F03CF120108; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 05:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 4OmklsreclOi; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 05:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de (atlas5.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D3C8120096; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 05:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C7E260; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 14:43:41 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.198]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id SZ7la7X2i2Bc; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 14:43:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (verified OK)) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 14:43:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 283DB20128; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 14:43:41 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10028) with ESMTP id zVDkpbD1Lwzz; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 14:43:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from exchange.jacobs-university.de (sxchmb04.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "exchange.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (verified OK)) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFA4420126; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 14:43:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from anna.localdomain (10.50.218.117) by sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.1713.5; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 14:43:39 +0200
Received: by anna.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 501) id 886B0300A8F1BD; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 14:43:39 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 14:43:39 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>
CC: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "Zhangwei (SS)" <zhangwei70@huawei.com>, Yangang <yangang@huawei.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190629124339.uvpratkwuvqrqmh5@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "Zhangwei (SS)" <zhangwei70@huawei.com>, Yangang <yangang@huawei.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA49BA669@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <0100016ba32f36f9-fbbee6ca-eee0-4735-a446-067bf59ed125-000000@email.amazonses.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0100016ba32f36f9-fbbee6ca-eee0-4735-a446-067bf59ed125-000000@email.amazonses.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
X-ClientProxiedBy: SXCHMB03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155) To sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ZfzDKnNV-Ft9n5DaBpqIvraC6Go>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [netconf] RE: pls clarify get operation
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 12:43:46 -0000

A server that has a reason to support NMDA (because, for example,
applied config can differ from running config) has to provide a
'cooked view' towards non-NMDA clients that is not representing the
entire truth and hence may cause clients to draw wrong conclusions.

Perhaps there is a business case to cheat non-NMDA clients but for
serious network operations, one would hope that the transition towards
NMDA is ideally short so that clients can work with robust data.

/js

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:21:48PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
> Hi Qin,
> 
> > If my understanding is correct, Frank’s intention is not proposed to fall back to single datastore, split tree. His concern is how Does the non-NMDA client talk with NMDA compliant devices, suppose large amount of devices support NMDA.
> 
> Using the original non-NMDA protocols, assuming the servers support both NMDA and non-NMDA.
> 
> > Does the device need to support both NMDA model and non-NMDA model?
> 
> Yes, assuming a heterogeneous mix of NMDA and non-NMDA servers. 
> 
> > Is this common case or corner case in real deployment senario.
> 
> While the industry is transitioning to NMDA, it is an expected case.  At some point, the IETF will obsolete non-NMDA support.
> 
> > suggestions or guidelines defined in NMDA architecture and NMDA guideline(/rfc8407#section-4.23.3) seem to only assume NMDA client only talks with NMDA server, non-NMDA client only talks with non-NMDA server.
> 
> True, but there’s no statement that a client or server cannot be both.  Note also that the NC/RC-NMDA RFCs explain how clients can discover if a server supports NMDA.  The intention is that the client would first try to use NMDA and, if not supported, fallback to non-NMDA. 
> 
> Kent // contributor 

> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf


-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>