Re: [netmod] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question on RFC8342 + RESTCONF extension (draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf)

"Seehofer, Markus" <> Tue, 11 December 2018 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32BEF130DD1 for <>; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 06:55:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J0XaOsvZGdF0 for <>; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 06:55:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61B94126F72 for <>; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 06:55:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (dcric1ppa01pa.mcp.local []) by dcric1ppa01pa.mcp.local ( with SMTP id wBBEn70p004981; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 09:55:10 -0500
Received: from dcric1exc05pa.mcp.local (dcric1exc05pa.mcp.local []) by dcric1ppa01pa.mcp.local with ESMTP id 2pae8wre2w-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 11 Dec 2018 09:55:10 -0500
Received: from DCRIC1EXC03PA.mcp.local ( by DCRIC1EXC05PA.mcp.local ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 09:55:10 -0500
Received: from DCRIC1EXC03PA.mcp.local ([]) by DCRIC1EXC03PA.mcp.local ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 09:55:10 -0500
From: "Seehofer, Markus" <>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [EXTERNAL] Re: [netmod] Question on RFC8342 + RESTCONF extension (draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf)
Thread-Index: AdSRW5qHNYi/eHfrTieT+mUbUnzcbQALMCKAAAo1hoA=
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 14:55:10 +0000
Message-ID: <9d40f9ad4b494e67ba2808341dc82e4d@DCRIC1EXC03PA.mcp.local>
References: <dee9854618dc46088972a34926c104c1@DCRIC1EXC03PA.mcp.local> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
x-c2processedorg: 157cf0a0-3349-4636-89a5-bb6917ccdf3c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-12-11_04:, , signatures=0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [EXTERNAL] Re: Question on RFC8342 + RESTCONF extension (draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 14:55:20 -0000

Hello Juergen,

see my comments inline below. As being quite new to the topic, going through all the old and current RFCs and drafts is quite challenging.
So please apologize for "simple" questions or ones maybe already raised.

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Juergen Schoenwaelder []
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2018 15:33
An: Seehofer, Markus
Betreff: [EXTERNAL] Re: [netmod] Question on RFC8342 + RESTCONF extension (draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf)

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 02:17:07PM +0000, Seehofer, Markus wrote:
> Hello,
> Reading RFC 8342 along with draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-05 I've some questions or comprehension problems with the text.
> 1.       RFC 8342 (NMDA)
> Chapter 5.3.  The Operational State Datastore (<operational>) says:
> "The operational state datastore (<operational>) is a read-only datastore .... "
> Chapter 6.2. Invocation of Actions and RPCs says:
> "Actions are always invoked in the context of the operational state datastore. The node for which the action is invoked MUST exist in the operational state datastore."
> Chapter 3.1 in says:
> "YANG actions can only be invoked in {+restconf}/ds/ietf-datastores:operational."
> Question: How can one invoke an action in a as read-only defined datastore? Or am I missing something?

Why do you expect that a datastore has to be writable in order to invoke an action? RFC 7950 has the example of a ping action tied to an interface. (You ping a remote system from that specific interface.) In general, actions are understood as being tied to real resources and hence to the operational datastore. (For example, you can't ping from an interface that is configured but not physically present.)

[MSEE]: I do not expect that a datastore has to be writeable to invoke an action, but I do expect that a "read-only" datastore is not writeable and RFC 8342 says clearly operational state datastore is "read-only".

> 2.       The NMDA is a huge step forward for NC and RC, thanks for that. NMDA in combination with the new RESTCONF extensions let one now select one of the named datastores
> in RFC 8342. Reading the RFC and draft I'm still missing (or even more overlook I guess) the following. RFC 8040 Chapter 4.5 says:
> "A PUT on the datastore resource is used to replace the entire
> contents of the datastore...". So does this mean one can have the same behavior as in NETCONF where you can copy the "running" config to "startup" or "candidate" config to "running" if a RESTCONF server would support them? Is there any example how this would look like if it is allowed?

A PUT does not really get you there, to copy a datastore to another you want an operation on the server.

[MSEE]: Exactly this is what I want. NETCONF specifies this clearly in the RFCs with <copy-config> but how does one trigger this with RESTCONF? I had the hope with NMDA + RESTCONF extensions this would
               be possible too. Or do I still miss something?

> 3.       Typo in Chapter 3.1 "the server would implement the resource {+restconf}/ds/example- ds-ephemeral:ds-ephemeral."
> There is a space in between "example-" and "ds-ephemeral:ds-ephemeral".

Lets hope we get this fixed with the help of the RFC editor.


Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <>