Re: [netmod] [netconf] RE: pls clarify get operation

Kent Watsen <> Sat, 29 June 2019 12:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5429D120108; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 05:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dqQbLsVTATDu; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 05:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9666812010E; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 05:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw;; t=1561810909; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:Feedback-ID; bh=lT9oGS1gdEVDyqrIp6idqGfojFYeY/yUogokmJFB8ic=; b=dX8GaaVOpLPoY+TMwNbqSuhgsurdLcVlxR8baqL/WQ6i8tA4dhb4bgSmolNWyD72 A6yIsfjumrxYWI/MbHXi9y2cWT9ictw2wAkWcepFWXM8mEndjSHY5+uVAihRisbzmaG RVy+fgWXEBywfnR6aEmgQAvX5T5SvV1bAOzF6d6s=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-311C214D-F3F0-485A-8E5B-3478E76D942E
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Kent Watsen <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16F203)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 12:21:48 +0000
Cc: Andy Bierman <>, "Fengchong (frank)" <>, "Zhangwei (SS)" <>, "" <>, "" <>, Yangang <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
To: Qin Wu <>
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.06.29-
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [netconf] RE: pls clarify get operation
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: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 12:21:52 -0000

Hi Qin,

> If my understanding is correct, Frank’s intention is not proposed to fall back to single datastore, split tree. His concern is how Does the non-NMDA client talk with NMDA compliant devices, suppose large amount of devices support NMDA.

Using the original non-NMDA protocols, assuming the servers support both NMDA and non-NMDA.

> Does the device need to support both NMDA model and non-NMDA model?

Yes, assuming a heterogeneous mix of NMDA and non-NMDA servers. 

> Is this common case or corner case in real deployment senario.

While the industry is transitioning to NMDA, it is an expected case.  At some point, the IETF will obsolete non-NMDA support.

> suggestions or guidelines defined in NMDA architecture and NMDA guideline(/rfc8407#section-4.23.3) seem to only assume NMDA client only talks with NMDA server, non-NMDA client only talks with non-NMDA server.

True, but there’s no statement that a client or server cannot be both.  Note also that the NC/RC-NMDA RFCs explain how clients can discover if a server supports NMDA.  The intention is that the client would first try to use NMDA and, if not supported, fallback to non-NMDA. 

Kent // contributor