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

I'm also in favor of B.

I personally do not like the way state/config are expressed in [1] as it complexifies the way yang modules are written while a solution like [4] allows to have a more cleaner yang module while achieving the same goal.

As expressed by others, B will also be faster with existing modules.

Best Regards,

Stephane

-----Original Message-----
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 16:20
To: netmod WG
Cc: netmod-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [netmod] Opstate solutions discussions: update and request for WG input

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
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.