Re: [netmod] Query about draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06 - Part -2

Rohit R Ranade <rohitrranade@huawei.com> Wed, 09 May 2018 05:46 UTC

Return-Path: <rohitrranade@huawei.com>
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 B5844127058 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2018 22:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 jLO2bsGXeZLX for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2018 22:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93BA7126DC2 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2018 22:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 224E9A49F1E9E for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 May 2018 06:45:57 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEMA402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.43) by LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Wed, 9 May 2018 06:45:57 +0100
Received: from DGGEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.91]) by DGGEMA402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.43]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Wed, 9 May 2018 13:45:46 +0800
From: Rohit R Ranade <rohitrranade@huawei.com>
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] Query about draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06 - Part -2
Thread-Index: AdPnWAIRsRBoDLkCS9SLDJeEL+Qjrg==
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 05:45:46 +0000
Message-ID: <991B70D8B4112A4699D5C00DDBBF878A6B204BBA@DGGEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.150.121]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_991B70D8B4112A4699D5C00DDBBF878A6B204BBADGGEMA502MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Zq7D03lsPgly6jSQzMytdQuWEHg>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Query about draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06 - Part -2
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 09 May 2018 05:46:04 -0000

Hi All,

Continuing with the below queries.

5.  For a module like "ietf-netconf-notifications", which implements only notifications. I think this module is not suitable to be put in any of the data-stores. So a separate module-set has to be prepared for such modules but not included in any data-store. Is it correct ?
6. Similar logic will apply to any module which only defines "rpc" statements also I think. Whether need to update the yang-library draft text mentioning these two scenarios ?

With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade

From: Rohit R Ranade
Sent: 09 May 2018 08:01
To: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: [netmod] Query about draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06

Hi All,


1.       "import-only-module" is currently under the "module-set" list. How does the client benefit by learning which module-set imports which modules ?

2.       Whether we can keep the "import-only-module" as a sibling to module-set. And let it list all the imported modules.

3.  Section 3 mentions the text  "A common use case is the operational state datastore schema which is a
  superset of the schema used by conventional configuration datastores. ". ==> I think it should be "maybe a superset" based on Point 3 of "Objectives" section.

4.       Also I feel the text about "netconf-capability-change" notification based on yang-library checksum should be moved to the NETCONF NMDA draft.  Is it not more suitable there ?

With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade