[Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: [netmod] Closing on an OpState Solution Direction (was: Opstate solutions discussions: update and request for WG input)

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 01 July 2016 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ACD212B069 for <rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 viAaU0Gu4T7Q for <rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy10-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy10-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.20.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2416312D766 for <rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 23071 invoked by uid 0); 1 Jul 2016 16:39:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO CMOut01) (10.0.90.82) by gproxy10.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 2016 16:39:31 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by CMOut01 with id DUfS1t00n2SSUrH01UfV8M; Fri, 01 Jul 2016 10:39:29 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=OPe0g0qB c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=cAmyUtKerLwA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=2e0-p80xrcNJJP8vqxkA:9 a=rsa8LudIkhsgxw8_:21 a=aGguCUFjmwur6afT:21 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22 a=Yz9wTY_ffGCQnEDHKrcv:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject; bh=3cIp16H7OPUQkEyGL06Cx9Y2srr0Tl5UFFb3kLarFLY=; b=DU6hneJoQaw/sIM14LpnoM26d7 23QQWWWGMiM3iGF8LpP2881G+zXt7mvAB9xRRb7PDuo6m7fUefUfrUmE/wG0eqkRapxG5VccHEDfO SJTOkRYE8131Hl+AdgHLCqklG;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:42547 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1bJ1TT-0005Pb-VF for rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2016 10:39:28 -0600
References: <e29fc8e1-8652-5555-dace-f8f511e50c89@labn.net>
To: Routing YANG Coordination <rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <e29fc8e1-8652-5555-dace-f8f511e50c89@labn.net>
Message-ID: <6c99eaaf-f4e1-051e-d226-9688acfcead4@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 12:39:21 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e29fc8e1-8652-5555-dace-f8f511e50c89@labn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-Source-IP: 69.89.31.113
X-Exim-ID: 1bJ1TT-0005Pb-VF
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: box313.bluehost.com ([127.0.0.1]) [69.89.31.113]:42547
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 0
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/_TzLFgPVGXjK_G9IKB3eVCtFBGE>
Subject: [Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: [netmod] Closing on an OpState Solution Direction (was: Opstate solutions discussions: update and request for WG input)
X-BeenThere: rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"List to discuss coordination between the Routing related YANG models\"" <rtg-yang-coord.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-yang-coord>, <mailto:rtg-yang-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-yang-coord/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-yang-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord>, <mailto:rtg-yang-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 16:39:36 -0000

FYI - comments should be directed to <netmod@ietf.org>;

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[netmod] Closing on an OpState Solution Direction (was:
Opstate solutions discussions: update and request for WG input)
Date: 	Fri, 1 Jul 2016 12:36:11 -0400
From: 	Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>;
To: 	netmod WG <netmod@ietf.org>;
CC: 	netmod-chairs@ietf.org <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>;


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


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