[netmod] some comments on revised-datastores-01

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Sat, 18 March 2017 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 B4E2B129412 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 12:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 QgIESRatTQq3 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 12:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x229.google.com (mail-wm0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A690126C83 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 12:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x229.google.com with SMTP id u132so37238186wmg.0 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 12:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=wQdUZ3TyDXvyl8YsiYEoXA/BXrdUv7oqV7uDbs9afYM=; b=rQ/swx1EHZqVJcLF0+mtUCmmZKz0AJZFjeJQsnMKzKuzzNrvRHwHXmAQZ7eYDWZcon Lz9AOQH/rPpuWnD+W95j2/anvUpLiQlU+5xSdeSCz+Zznb2cRVhXPplf4fxosaupwPM3 uDlw+1JxnSXwjHQD5zD7LwgYE8EwPzDzqBKISo8Y/xCrxJBGUHHmnmBXShjARpl4urTO YpJbmktgI8LoXr8oh9UvDEohDA37bIXx0BmWmFZ4BOQoijQFoXKGvkc1O4nsc5xyoJ78 d6C13P7mIYqNsIK4jiBsCX2aPO68MYIvgZlhJ71ktpko65YpwHQSDNAYcGc3WFJu4mGo A6Ww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=wQdUZ3TyDXvyl8YsiYEoXA/BXrdUv7oqV7uDbs9afYM=; b=XdtjtXOu1k1CqM1m/JXpzPsnpwDwlbNUhhj5GsK2pA4SGZ62uRBTmL+QZye+t1s0DT TTN7kXYAQjhYtuPTKG6XPo/dY/GdIR/jePa4W8DCEgqcCSkIy+5AFV9JqfStZjeSIujA nsfm4z26WLB0ZqS7NKNsJFT41QZ6Tn/r/niPeotJwV9zBdLBh5J+FKPfLCN3R1qC2bmn K6nYn4+Se7S10+4qOKOHrsuaIcUL/sFM2nrd9WZuO3fFnxCqJEFzTMrigE+EQ603TcyI y04/yQaz/loLnkGfIS0Mg8xmdGGsTZh73jkkbcLjU6lWDH5R21m2a2LMwBckPFYYQoBD flXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H36PeGh96feL/l2TJ7X0sCdVMmPLIJiyGzco1rTmJ8gpExtMkYXZmqcCFjNRXErd/HLHWPXdoDplDd7zQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.103.3 with SMTP id b3mr3273770wmc.99.1489865016908; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 12:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.166.37 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Mar 2017 12:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 12:23:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQDWqDXtkVtQH4dsRRO4HFAJELU1_06TBvhjnZZtj9t8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114a91b218b53b054b063bef
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/edjve9HsO1gL-h5keHyJHHumuJc>
Subject: [netmod] some comments on revised-datastores-01
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: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 19:23:41 -0000

Hi,

I like this draft -- even more than I like datastores.
Looks like some thought went into the terminology section.

One minor concern:

sec. 4.1:

   On a traditional NETCONF implementation, <running> and <intended> are
   always the same.


The intended datastore is completely proprietary.
Is that part of the architecture or are there any plans for the standards
to have some purpose for the intended datastore?


I want to support 2 datastores that don't fit your descriptions very well:

factory:  read-only config representing the values that a factory reset
would use.  Allows copy-config to support a factory config reload.

library-config: needed as a bootstrap datastore with the module/bundle
configuration. Like the ietf-yang-library, but the config does not exactly
match
the structure of the YANG library.

Can vendors add datastores to a server?
Or is this IANA-registered?  And/or hard-wired in RFCs?



Andy