Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Acee writes:
> >    Then I see no YANG language barriers in collapsing config and state
> trees
> >    - the model root just needs to be “config true”.
>
> Great, I think we’re all agreed.  Can we now discuss the text I proposed
> for 6087bis?  - here’s the link to my proposal:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/-zbXNhw2BJYMyrBT9nnCwoLAJ0s.
>
>
IMO this effort to avoid 2 containers is not well thought out.
Some concerns:

1) modularity
    placing the monitoring objects within the configuration means the
monitoring
    cannot be used on its own

2) access control
    placing the monitoring data within configuration means the
monitoring-only clients
    need write permission turned on for the nodes they can access for
read-only
    This relies on granular and complex NACM rules which require regular
maintenance.

3) YANG conformance
    placing the monitoring data inside the configuration means the
configuration
    will be required for conformance; it is not likely to be just 1 NP
container.

4) pointless;
   given that new RPC operations are needed to access applied config, the
only data not
   affected (and moved under the config container anyway) is stuff that
does not share
   the same indexing, or counters which are not part of the opstate problem.



Andy


Hint: the first few edits are just nits...skip over the first few
> paragraphs until you start seeing large blocks of changed lines...
>
> Kent // as a contributor
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>