[netmod] schema mount situation and next steps
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Sat, 17 March 2018 23:13 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.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 EE83B12D87F for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 16:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.509
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 HLomZzJ9TanE for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 16:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86EE012426E for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 16:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8281; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1521328412; x=1522538012; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:mime-version; bh=/VLU8ZMbDz7jqaO5K9DF57oae0j424kpVVqbGOCacz8=; b=HRuD3cTZiB3cFdi8UReNX5z8oMmkCwlIvwz6lGwdBTdbx6XLIpft84qX +zKLO/ZBnO5qbHxvEjBG/XdAXj1KxZy9/j7/7UONIkOzZcAgXYs0Rqg96 lk3I/02kmjtoMLu/BR51gAby3MOCwBTpT74zPtuTJDe1HaxXtQNz80AJG I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AqCAAkoK1a/xbLJq1dGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEIAQEBAYQ2ciiDXYoacoxRAYIDC4EkG45xhQ8UgX4LI4QghCU0GAECAQEBAQEBAmsohU+BMwJTDA0IAQEXhH0PqxaCJiaESINmggkFhTODaoFTASgMgWRVgnNeAgGBLQQUAQGDJoJhA5g2CY8qB4gZhRSKfIU5gSoeOIFSMxoIGxU6gkOQa0A0AY1lgjoBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,322,1517875200"; d="scan'208,217";a="2671306"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Mar 2018 23:13:29 +0000
Received: from [10.61.211.207] ([10.61.211.207]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w2HNDSZF012236 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 23:13:29 GMT
To: NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <51a75ec9-0821-d28b-ac81-8bede95b838d@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 23:13:28 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------CB7E6A37025F38D89F9BEFE4"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/r_SBZvqtQt8nZ3orpZb5WnqTnKI>
Subject: [netmod] schema mount situation and next steps
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, 17 Mar 2018 23:13:35 -0000
Dear all, In the last two weeks, I've been multiplying the schema mount discussions. It's now time to draw the conclusions and to move on. I'm sad that schema-mount is not NMDA compliant. We approved RFC6087bis with the NMDA transition guidelines. I'm sad that progression to IETF-LC has not been completed on the schema-mount document since the WGLC in November. As discussed with the document shepherd Joel, there is not a strong support position for the schema mount document (version 08), but rough consensus. The interaction with YANG library bis has been noted during the WGLC. What happened since that WGLC closure on Nov6th is that the people position became tougher and that multiple possible tracks have been investigated. I believe we heard the arguments from everybody. Taking my AD responsibilities, what's next? 1. We have been losing so much time (which I regret) since the WGLC that publishing 08 now makes sense, solving one aspect of the problem: the situation where the set of YANG modules is the same in all datastores. Is this perfect solution? Certainly not. The LNE and NI documents, in the RFC editor queue, depend on the version 8 of schema mount. So let's pursue that publication path. 2. The document 08 should be edited before requesting the publication. - The draft should be clearly specified that this solution is not fully NMDA complaint. For example, in the abstract - The draft should mention an applicability statement, such as the one the chairs proposed: This work was produced during the period when NMDA solutions were being developed in parallel. While the model defined in this document can be used with both NMDA and non-NMDA supporting implementations, there are limitations in its NMDA applicability. When used with Yang Library [RFC7895] only non-NMDA implementations can be supported. When used with the revised Yang Library defined in [I.D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis], NMDA implementations can be supported with certain limitations. Specifically, this document requires use of the now deprecated module-list grouping, and the same schema represented in schema list of ietf-schema-mount MUST be used in all datastores. Inline type mount points, which don't use the schema list, don't have this limitation as they can support different schema in different datastores by instantiating the [I.D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis] version of YANG library under the inline mount point. A future revision of this work is expected to provide for full NMDA support. - Some edits are needed: the nits from the YD review https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg19443.html Another one, addressing one of Lada's important complaints. The use of mount points does not impact the nature of the mounted data or in which datastore information is made available. For example, the datastore from which YANG Library module information may be obtained is not impacted by the use of schema mount. This is case for both the top level YANG Library module and any YANG Library modules included under a mount point. The Schema Mount module itself MUST be present in the same datastore as the YANG Library module. Next, we want to work on a NMDA solution, based on the pre-09 version ... I guess. This solution will obsolete the current 08 document and reference the YANG library bis. Let's dedicate the full second NETMOD session (on Wednesday) to schema mount and let's use our energy to focus on the best solution. Regards, Benoit (as OPS AD)
- [netmod] schema mount situation and next steps Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] schema mount situation and next steps Benoit Claise