[Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: [netmod] Opstate solutions discussions: update and request for WG input

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 08 June 2016 13:06 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 E0AF212D0F5 for <rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 06:06:11 -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 cP810N_0VLJj for <rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 06:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.20.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1F21A12D0FB for <Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 06:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 8035 invoked by uid 0); 8 Jun 2016 13:06:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy9.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 8 Jun 2016 13:06:05 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id 4D611t01N2SSUrH01D64Qk; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 07:06:05 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=ecGuId0H c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=bjOTHDNsHRUA:10 a=pD_ry4oyNxEA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=UpDgKoEnUKNL7nFQn14A:9 a=ePRFXQdX5Jlhjh0d:21 a=-HK9cRhjIXiZLujl:21 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=Yz9wTY_ffGCQnEDHKrcv:22 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG: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:MIME-Version:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:To:From; bh=XSM4a2+kAy3g2EaMhDGDcpeODi25Jf9fw1rEQzK8mCo=; b=gRSXlod0Vf2bwFXOR1OCyz1lpy 8/34VFaVINuv0g5HMrX8UyofNTssrjo2f9G8iqVKAnTEFrwsyhsMNeqwHtxdbnjPteX/smlDX7QPQ 9QXMNklqAapyO2L27BNrUZZDO;
Received: from [172.58.184.72] (port=46238 helo=[192.0.0.4]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1bAdBJ-0000Lc-9T for Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 07:06:01 -0600
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: <Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:05:56 -0400
Message-ID: <155301e8b20.2818.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <63b1dc74-c60c-351d-8d6d-38c860a6476e@labn.net>
References: <63b1dc74-c60c-351d-8d6d-38c860a6476e@labn.net>
User-Agent: AquaMail/1.6.2.3 (build: 27000203)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 172.58.184.72 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/jpyu03KszGHNlWSASDdiWOnQW2I>
Subject: [Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: [netmod] 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: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 13:06:12 -0000

FYI this decision is likely to have some impact on models under 
development, including in the routing area. Comments on the message itself 
should go to netmod.

Lou


--- Forwarded message ---
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>;
Date: June 7, 2016 10:20:23 AM
Subject: [netmod] Opstate solutions discussions: update and request for WG 
input
To: netmod WG <netmod@ietf.org>;
CC: netmod-chairs@ietf.org

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