Re: [netmod] Opstate solutions discussions: update and request for WG input

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

For the record, I also think that B is the right choice.

Rob


On 07/06/2016 15:19, Lou Berger wrote:
> All,
>
> We want to provide an update based on the off line discussions
> related to OpState Solutions that we have been having and solicit
> input from the WG.
>
> All authors of current solution drafts [1,2,3] together with those
> who helped conduct the solutions analysis* were invited to the these
> discussions -- with the objective of coming up with a single
> consolidated proposal to bring to the WG. (I/Lou acted as facilitator
> as Kent and Juergen were and are involved with the technical details.)
>
> The discussions have yielded some results but, unfortunately,
> not a single consolidated proposal as hoped, but rather two
> alternate directions -- and clearly we need to choose one:
>
>      1) Adopt the conventions for representing state/config
>         based on Section 6 of [1].
>
>         From a model definition perspective, these conventions
>         impact every model and every model writer.
>
>      2) Model OpState using a revised logical datastore definition
>         as introduced in [4] and also covered in [5]. There is
>         also a variant of this that we believe doesn't significantly
>         impact this choice.
>
>         With this approach, model definitions need no explicit
>         changes to support applied configuration.
>
> >From a technology/WG standpoint, we believe an approach
> that doesn't impact every model written (i.e., #2) is superior.
> The counterpoint to this is that the conventions based
> approach (i.e., #1) is available today and being followed in
> OpenConfig defined models.
>
> We would like to hear opinions on this from the WG before
> declaring one of the following as the WG direction:
>
>      A) models that wish to support applied configuration MUST
>         follow conventions based on [1] -- and the WG needs to
>         formalize these conventions.
> or
>      B) no explicit support is required for models to support
>         applied configuration -- and that the WG needs to
>         formalize an opstate solution based on the approach
>         discussed in [4] and [5].
>
> We intend to close on this choice before Berlin.
>
> Thank you,
> Lou (and co-chairs)
>
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kwatsen-netmod-opstate-02
> [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang-02
> [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-netmod-revised-datastores-00
> [5] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilton-netmod-refined-datastores-00
> * - Chris H. and Acee L.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> .
>