Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll - instance-data

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

I would expect that there are many other alternative uses of YANG 
instance data.

Some possible alternatives that I can think of:
- Storing the configuration of a device at some point in time to a file, 
e.g. for archive or audit purposes.
- Storing diagnostics data, if the format of the data was defined as 
YANG data models.  Here I could imagine the data potentially being 
stored in a compressed tar file that could be taken off the device.
- Allowing YANG instance data to potentially be carried within other IPC 
message formats.
- Perhaps file based default instance data used as part of a templating 
solution.
- File based factory defaults.

Thanks,
Rob


On 09/10/2018 13:15, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> Hello Martin,
>
> I agree that this document shall be about defining the file format,
> and server capabilities shall only be a use-case.)
>
> I already took out a lot of text, that explicitly recommended using
> instance data for documenting capabilities. Server capabilities are 
> only mentioned in the introduction chapter.
> As you wrote: There is no _normative_  specification of how a server 
> would document its capabilities, because this is
> what the WG requested, so I removed it.
>
> I see that I forgot to change the title and the introduction can be 
> reworded to make
> it more clear that documenting server capabilities is just a use-case.
> (I still see it as the primary use-case for instance data.)
>
>  If I promise to change the title and clarify the introduction can you 
> support adoption?
>
> regards Balazs
>
> On 2018. 10. 09. 12:58, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I still think that this draft should either be split into two, one for
>> specifiying the generic file format (ok with examples), and one for
>> "Documenting Server Capabilities", or the document should just be
>> about the file format (+ *examples*).
>>
>> [The current document mixes the two; it's a bit as if we had "The
>> YANG language and a model for interfaces" as one doc...]
>>
>> It is clear that the document specifies a file format for YANG
>> instance data, which is good.  But it is not clear if the document
>> intends to specify how a server should document its capabilities.
>>
>> The Introduction mainly talks about why it is important to document
>> server capabilities.  But then AFAICT there is no normative
>> specification of how a server would document its capabilities.
>>
>>
>> /martin
>>
>>
>> Lou Berger <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> This is start of a two week poll on making
>>> draft-lengyel-netmod-yang-instance-data-04 a working group
>>> document. Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or
>>> "no/do not support".  If indicating no, please state your reservations
>>> with the document.  If yes, please also feel free to provide comments
>>> you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG document.
>>>
>>> The poll ends Oct 22.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Lou (and co-chairs)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod