Re: [netmod] Datastore leaf for yang instance data

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 03:43:01PM +0000, Robert Wilton wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > I do not understand why a datastore leaf is not sufficient and why we
> > need yet something new. If ever needed, NMDA does allow us to define
> > new datastores.
> 
> Because a distinction between "candidate" vs "running" vs "intended" won't
> necessarily be that useful.  Although knowing "running" vs "intended" would
> allow the client to know whether it is pre/post template expansion and that
> might be useful.

I think it is. I would also assume that the need to save <candidate>
instance data in a file is rare. So its likely <running> or <intended>
and for some systems the difference is small, for others it may not be
small. My point is we have a way to distinguish things and we should
use that instead of creating something new that lumps things together
again.
 
> The second reason is that I don't know whether things like capabilities and
> diagnostics will be new datastores or just part of operational.  I don't
> think that either of these two areas have really been properly worked out
> yet.  I presume that they will come over time, once more network management
> becomes more automated.

By default this is all <operational>. The schema (aka YANG library)
exists in <operational> already today. I do not know what your
definition of 'diagnostics' is but until we have something else, I
assume this is in <operational>. And yes, if systems have other
creative datastores, we have a way to deal with that as well. Its all
there and I am afraid that creating yet another way to classify data
just adds pain and brings back ambiguity.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>