Re: [netmod] some comments on revised-datastores-01

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Sue,

I think that only (c) is "done", and even then only to the point that a proposal is offered in the appendix D.2 in the revised-datastores draft.

(b) has never been discussed.

(a) is what this recent flap has been about.  We'll see if it's a list of datastores or capabilities or something else...

Kent


-----ORIGINAL MESSAGE-----

Kent and Juergen: 

To summarize your messages: 

a) a global datastore list 
b) Each datastore contains a list of modules it contains (currently done) 
c) Each module contains a list of datastores it supports. 

Is this correct?  Or did I misunderstand. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: netmod [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 1:09 PM
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [netmod] some comments on revised-datastores-01


> I believe this is the wrong direction, even if we rewrite the module 
> in the revised datastores document and split it into multiple modules.
> A simple list of implemented datastores is cheap. It is flexible. It 
> does not require explanations and rules how definitions must be split 
> into modules that finally must be remembered and checked still in 5-10 
> years from now. I firmly believe that these types of 'optimizations'
> lead to creeping complexity down the road. Lets not create CLRs how 
> modules must be structued, named, etc.

That's a better answer.  At least now I get the sense that you actually
understood what I was saying.

As for your proposal, I agree with you that it would be best to have an
explicit list.  I assume that this would be another proposed change to YANG
Library (i.e., Section D.2 in the revised-datastores draft).  It will be
tricky to enforce the use of this version of YANG Library in RESTCONF
without a -bis document...

K.


_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod