Subject: [netmod] Y42 again

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:16:16 -1000

Hi,

one of the strong inputs I received from Sue Hares during the YANG Advice session on Sunday was that NETMOD should find a general solution to their ephemeral config issue.

I personally believe a solution based on synchronizing another datastore with running has fundamental flaws, and I also don’t get how mount could help with it.

In a more general setting, I think it boils down to configuration protocols that bypass running. If it’s not I2RS, it could be something else, e.g. HNCP. And although it was YANG 1.1 issue Y42 that tried to address this problem, maybe the core of the poodle is the (hidden) NETCONF assumption that parameters in running config are those that the system actually uses in operation.

We agreed to move Y42 to DEAD, and I don’t have any complete solution, but I have a gut feeling that this issue will keep recurring. Shouldn’t we try to address it after all?

Lada

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 20:28:09 +0100

I believe this issue is DEAD until I2RS has figured out what they want
and it is clear this requires any work to be done for _YANG_1.1_. This
is what the issue tracker says:

   2014-10-15 meeting proposal: move Y42 to DEAD since there is
   nothing actionable to do until I2RS has decided what they need;
   once this happens, we can reopen this issue or add more concrete
   issues (which may be a better choice).

My goal is to complete YANG 1.1 in a reasonable time. After more than
a half day of discussion of I2RS issues and ephemeral datastores in
particular at the New York NETMOD interim, we concluded that ephemeral
datastores do not require any YANG 1.1 changes. So it seems reasonable
to close this issue.

/js

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 04:16:16PM -1000, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 09:48:16 -1000

> is what the issue tracker says:

The thing is that

1. I2RS folks know what they want, the problem is how to implement it so that it plays well together with NETCONF. I think this cannot be easily done without reconsidering some essential assumptions behind YANG and NETCONF, namely that NETCONF has no monopoly on configuration.

2. The issue is not I2RS-specific and Y42 wasn’t meant so. Look at current developments, e.g. in homenet or anima - we will have the same problem back before long.

And the problem is: configuration protocols and channels that bypass running datastore and follow their own rules.

Lada

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 21:04:09 +0100

Lada,

I probably have not been clear enough: I am looking for an official
I2RS WG consensus statment what I2RS needs from NETMOD. I have not
received such a statement nor have I seen activity on the I2RS mailing
list recently indicating that this is just around the corner.

We have other YANG 1.1 OPEN issues to work on at this point in time.

/js

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:15:16 -1000

> list recently indicating that this is just around the corner.

It was you who restricted Y42 to I2RS requirements.

Lada

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 21:23:50 +0100

> It was you who restricted Y42 to I2RS requirements.

I am restricting this to YANG 1.1. I am not interested to solve issues
for protocols that may be invented in the future. I am not interested
to solve NETCONF/YANG architectural issues that span well beyond YANG
1.1 under the hood of Y42.

/js