Subject: [netmod] architecture document scope

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:12:46 +0200

Hi,

I think we need to agree what the purpose and scope of the
architecture document is. The NETMOD charter says:

  1. An architecture document explaining the relationship
     between YANG and its inputs and outputs. (informational)

This is rather fuzzy. While the input is clear (data models written in
YANG), the output is less clear since at the end of the day we want
YANG models to be implemented in NETCONF servers as the output. How
you get there is tool dependent.

For me, it would make more sense to have an architecture document
describing the big picture behind NETCONF plus YANG. Since YANG is a
domain specific language for NETCONF, I would even argue that a YANG
architecture has to reference NETCONF architectural concepts and since
we do not have a NETCONF architecture, we need to address this anyhow.

What is the WGs opinion?

/js

-- 
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/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

---

From: Balazs Lengyel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:47:11 +0200

Hello Jurgen,
While I basically agree with you, this could open up long debates about access control, 
relation to SNMP, non-YANG based usage of Netconf etc.
Balazs

-- 
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
TSP System Manager
ECN: 831 7320                        Fax: +36 1 4377792
Tel: +36-1-437-7320     email: [email-masked]
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 12:11:03 +0200

Juergen,

I would not spend too much time looking strictly at the words in the
charter - especially when we deal with architecture.  

I do understand - I think - what we had in mind when we put the YANG
architecture document in the charter, and this was related to
clarification of specific issues that were discussed during the
formation of the WG about how the flow of models in different languages
will work and what is in-between. I agree with your observation that
part of the output is tools dependent - but this is part of the
clarification. 

What would a 'big picture' architecture for NETCONF include in your
opinion? What NETCONF architectural concepts are missing to provide for
the NETMOD architecture? 

I do not hide that I am somehow concerned that when we would get to the
NETCONF architecture we would need to refer a broader architecture view
of the IETF management architecture. From boiling a cup of tea we got to
boiling a lake and we then get close to boiling the ocean. 

Dan

(speaking as a contributor)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 10:13 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [netmod] architecture document scope
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is rather fuzzy. While the input is clear (data models 
> written in YANG), the output is less clear since at the end 
> of the day we want YANG models to be implemented in NETCONF 
> servers as the output. How you get there is tool dependent.
> 
> For me, it would make more sense to have an architecture 
> document describing the big picture behind NETCONF plus YANG. 
> Since YANG is a domain specific language for NETCONF, I would 
> even argue that a YANG architecture has to reference NETCONF 
> architectural concepts and since we do not have a NETCONF 
> architecture, we need to address this anyhow.
> 
> What is the WGs opinion?
> 
> /js
> 
> --

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 14:42:33 +0200

> opinion? What NETCONF architectural concepts are missing to provide for

The big picture requires to explain how the twins NETCONF and YANG fit
into the overall picture from the viewpoint of device manufacturers,
management application writers, and operators. And there are some
fundamental assumptions underlying the design of NETCONF and YANG that
are not really spelled out. Andy once called some of them axioms on
the mailing list and he also once had an ID with some good relevant
material.
 
> boiling a lake and we then get close to boiling the ocean. 

Yes, I am aware of the risks.

/js

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:03:47 -0700

> we do not have a NETCONF architecture, we need to address this anyhow.

I agree with your assessment.

> /js

Andy

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:35:59 +0200

> Andy Bierman wrote:
> written in

This is true. We should show in the draft that the two 
architectures are related to each other and give at 
basic information on the NETCONF architecture. 
Currently chapter 2.1 NETCONF gives only two arguments 
for XML usage.