[Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: [netmod] Closing on an OpState Solution Direction

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 5:31 AM
Subject: Re: [netmod] Closing on an OpState Solution Direction
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, netmod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Cc: "netmod-chairs@ietf.org" <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>

Thanks Lou and Kent.

As mentioned in YANG Data Models in the Industry: Current State of Affairs
<https://www.ietf.org/blog/2016/03/yang-data-models-in-the-industry-current-state-of-affairs/>:
"Once those two issues are resolved, this will for sure open the gate to
publish all these much-needed models."
While the operation status is not yet solved, the key message is that the
YANG modules don't need to be modified.
So, now is THE time to publish those YANG models.

Regards, Benoit

All,

It's time to make a consensus call on this topic, so that we can all
move on to defining a solution and aligning modules under development.
Based on the feedback received and the overall discussions on the
topic, we see that there is consensus to follow a datastore based
approach to supporting operational state, i.e., direction 'B'.

We will be asking the authors of [4] and [5] to review their proposals
(individual drafts) in Berlin, as well as to highlight differences and
suggest ways that their work could be consolidated. Of course, others
may also choose to submit their own proposals. Given the importance of
this work, we will be looking to have active discussion on the topic
both in Berlin and on the list, with an objective of having a draft
ready for considerations as a WG document by the November IETF.

We have reviewed this decision with our AD and the NetConf chairs and
have agreed to begin this work in NetMod. We certainly expect to
coordinate the work with the NetConf WG and re-home work as/if needed.

Finally, we'd also like to thank all those who have contributed to
this discussion to date, from problem identification to proposed
solutions, and we look forward to your continued efforts to publish a
standard solution.

Lou (and Kent)

On 6/7/2016 10:19 AM, 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 listnetmod@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing listnetmod@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
.

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod