Re: [YANG] new pyang errors

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@cesnet.cz> Wed, 23 January 2008 12:02 UTC

Return-path: <yang-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHeJa-0006Ed-Gz; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:02:46 -0500
Received: from yang by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JHeJY-00066G-W9 for yang-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:02:45 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHeJY-00064s-Iy for yang@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:02:44 -0500
Received: from office2.cesnet.cz ([195.113.144.244]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHeJY-0004RL-5r for yang@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:02:44 -0500
Received: from [172.29.2.201] (asus-gx.lhotka.cesnet.cz [195.113.161.161]) by office2.cesnet.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9734D800C7 for <yang@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:02:43 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [YANG] new pyang errors
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@cesnet.cz>
To: yang@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20080123100640.GA7700@elstar.local>
References: <200801230559.m0N5xoXf020086@idle.juniper.net> <1201074051.17304.35.camel@missotis> <20080123074427.GE7105@elstar.local> <1201076756.17304.62.camel@missotis> <20080123084123.GB7227@elstar.local> <1201079984.17304.85.camel@missotis> <20080123092832.GD7227@elstar.local> <1201081170.17304.104.camel@missotis> <20080123100640.GA7700@elstar.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Organization: CESNET
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:02:43 +0100
Message-Id: <1201089763.17304.126.camel@missotis>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1
X-BeenThere: yang@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: YANG modeling Language for NETCONF <yang.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang>, <mailto:yang-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/yang>
List-Post: <mailto:yang@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang>, <mailto:yang-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: yang-bounces@ietf.org

Juergen Schoenwaelder píše v St 23. 01. 2008 v 11:06 +0100:

> 
> But we seem to have fundamental differences about the split of work:
> 
> - I want the NETCONF server to be authoritative to tell the client what
>   the configuration is, with and without defaults expanded.

A simpler protocol is better. If you allow this choice, you also have
to:
1. extend the NETCONF protocol so that it is able to distinguish 
   between the two cases,
2. carefully specify the semantics of concepts like default values, 
   mandatory versus optional etc.

> 
> - You seem to assume some magic processing exists on the manager side
>   which takes what the device reports and modifies it e.g. by patching
>   in defaults yielding a complete config.

Why do you call it magic? It's perfectly deterministic and local
processing from client's point of view - the application has all
information and just does what the user wants. And the user can always
check what's going on without caring about what "magic" happened at the
remote end. It can efficiently work even with different devices - the
factory defaults are not relevant here.

It does imply slightly more complexity than raw ssh on the manager side,
but for the managed device it is actually simpler - it needn't care
about which values in its config datastore differ from factory defaults.

Lada

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C



_______________________________________________
YANG mailing list
YANG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang