[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
- [Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: [netmod] Closing on an OpSt… Alia Atlas
- [Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: [netmod] Closing on an OpSt… Lou Berger
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: [netmod] Opstate soluti… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- [Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: [netmod] Opstate solutions … Lou Berger
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: [netmod] Opstate soluti… Susan Hares
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: [netmod] Opstate soluti… Lou Berger
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: [netmod] Opstate soluti… Susan Hares
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: [netmod] Opstate soluti… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: [netmod] Opstate soluti… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: [netmod] Opstate soluti… Lou Berger
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: [netmod] Opstate soluti… Susan Hares
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] [i2rs] Fwd: [netmod] Opstate… Susan Hares