Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> My concern is that the definition of <running> is being changed to
> include undefined and undeclared proprietary extensions.
> This is counter-productive to the IETF's stated goal of interoperability.
>
>

I would prefer to solve this problem by making disabled nodes part of the
standard:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kwatsen-conditional-enablement-00
Bring back Kent's draft -- define a simple boolean for enabled/disabled.

I don't understand why templates are mentioned in the draft.
since they are not really defined.  Isn't it good enough to say that
the server can add configuration nodes to the <intended> datastore,
without getting specific about non-standard mechanisms?
There are many other ways the server can inject configuration that are not
mentioned.


Andy




> Andy
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
>> > [e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:07:58PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > >
>> > > > I strongly agree with Tom that the current draft is an update to RFC
>> > > 7950.
>> > > > I also strongly disagree with the decision to omit RFC 2119 in a
>> > > standards
>> > > > track document. IMO RFC 2119 terms need to be used in normative
>> text,
>> > > > especially when dealing with XPath and YANG compiler behavior.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > RFC 8174:
>> > >
>> > >    o  These words can be used as defined here, but using them is not
>> > >       required.  Specifically, normative text does not require the use
>> > >       of these key words.  They are used for clarity and consistency
>> > >       when that is what's wanted, but a lot of normative text does not
>> > >       use them and is still normative.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > So what?
>> > Existing YANG specifications use RFC 2119 terms.
>> > This draft uses those terms, just with lower-case.
>>
>> Actually, section 5.1 XPath Context in the revised datastore draft
>> uses the same language as section 6.4.1 XPath Context in RFC 7950.  In
>> fact, the text in the draft is copied (and adjusted) from RFC 7950.
>>
>>
>> /martin
>>
>
>