Subject: [i2rs] FW: New Version Notification for draft-hares-netmod-i2rs-yang-04.txt

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 14:37:46 -0500

Russ: 
<individual contributor hat on> 
I request a time slot to present a yang syntax that would support I2RS work. 

Sue Hares 
<individual contributor hat off> 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 2:41 PM
To: [email-masked]; Amit Daas; Susan Hares
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-hares-netmod-i2rs-yang-04.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-hares-netmod-i2rs-yang-04.txt
has been successfully submitted by Susan Hares and posted to the IETF repository.

Name:		draft-hares-netmod-i2rs-yang
Revision:	04
Title:		Yang for I2RS Protocol
Document date:	2017-03-11
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		26
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hares-netmod-i2rs-yang-04.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-netmod-i2rs-yang/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hares-netmod-i2rs-yang-04
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-hares-netmod-i2rs-yang-04

Abstract:
   This document requests yang language additions for the data models
   that exist as part of the I2RS control plane datastore.  One of these
   additions is the ability to mark a portion of the model as having
   ephemeral state.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 13:41:07 +0000

Hi Sue,

I've only had a very quick scan of the doc, and I think that you may be 
planning to update this to reflect revised-datastores-1 anyway.

But I have one high level question/comment (that I think may equally 
apply to the I2RS impact on NETCONF and RESTCONF):

Is I2RS planning on making changes/additions to the core of YANG to 
support I2RS requirements?  I.e. new YANG statements that would expect 
to be supported by all YANG implementations.

Or, is I2RS planning on defining some I2RS specific extensions to YANG, 
which would also include defining some new I2RS specific datastore(s), 
but that would not change the core of the YANG language?  E.g. rather 
than adding a new "ephemeral" keyword to YANG, the I2RS extension would 
define the "ephemeral" extension statement, which would then be 
annotated in I2RS specific modules as "i2rs:ephemeral true".

I think that the latter approach would be much more preferable if that 
is feasible.

Similar comments to NETCONF and RESTCONF may equally apply (I've not 
read your drafts yet).  I.e. if possible, it is probably better to 
define optional I2RS specific extensions than attempt to bake I2RS 
support into the NETCONF or RESTCONF protocols themselves.

Thanks,
Rob

On 11/03/2017 19:37, Susan Hares wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
> .
>

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:38:41 -0400

Robert:

<individual contributor hat on> 
Yes, I am planning to update this to reflect revised-datastores-01.txt.
You updated on 3/13 (smile) - it was hard to anticipate all your changes
(smile).    First of I2RS WG will suggest changes, and NETMOD will insert
these in appropriate documents.  All my comments in this email should be
based on that point. 

Second - I think we can break the documents suggestion into two separate
categories:  
a) what is needed to support datastores and control plane datastores  
b) what is needed for ephemeral modules in datastores, and ephemeral
datastores. 

AFAIK - I2RS is just the first WG to define requirements for a+b.  This
draft is trying to give examples of what is needed.  Pros/Cons of different
ways can be debated by people who are implementing this work. 

IMO - most of what I proposed is datastore and control plane datastore
specific.  I had proposed these as optional additions to YANG 1.1 for I2RS
support - because I had not read your revised datastores 1.1 which suggested
datastores should be a fully supported function (if I understood that
correctly).  

1) datastore def - this list of datastore with a list of modules 
If I understood Juergen's suggestions - he suggested something like this
mechanism on the list.  He did not suggest the sub-statements: 

1) dstype - where it defines the type of datastore 
2) module list - for a list of modules
3) precedence - the precedence between this datastore and other datastores.
Datastores will need to sort out what gets applied.  It is better to provide
YANG language to support this specification to aid interoperability.  
4) protosup -  What protocol can be used to support this 
   protobase - NETCONF (v1/v2), RESTCONF or other protocols (gPRC, CoAP) 
   protoadd - what capabilities (control-plane datastores, ephemeral)  - we
may need to add non-secure transport here. 

5) validation - rules for validating entries   
if in the datastore, then validation rules are default for all modules.  If
in module, defines default rules for modules.  If in an object (submodule,
submodule, an action, a container, a grouping, a leaf, a leaf-list, a
   list, or an rpc), it defines that rules within that context. 

Suggested rules:  
1) bulkcheck - for large routing updates.  Let's try this first within an
rpc. 
2) Caching:  By default, I2RS clients only support 1 plane of glass for I2RS
modules.  Caching allows more than 1 pane of glass cached, but update to
applied has 1 value. 

I2RS Rules: 
Validation: substatement 
1)  nstransport - transport can be non-secure - It is important to flag
portions of modules with this feature.  

Ephemeral rules: 
1) ephemeral true/false; - valid on all forms datastore, module, and objects
(submodule, submodule, an action, a container, a grouping, a leaf, a
leaf-list, a
   list, or an rpc), it defines that rules within that context.
 
What is not there from ephemeral state:  
Edit-collision prevention (aka priority, client-id) 
Opaque secondary id.

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Robert Wilton
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 9:41 AM
To: Susan Hares; 'Russ White'; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-hares-netmod-i2rs-yang-04.txt

Hi Sue,

But I have one high level question/comment (that I think may equally apply
to the I2RS impact on NETCONF and RESTCONF):

Is I2RS planning on making changes/additions to the core of YANG to support
I2RS requirements?  I.e. new YANG statements that would expect to be
supported by all YANG implementations.

Or, is I2RS planning on defining some I2RS specific extensions to YANG,
which would also include defining some new I2RS specific datastore(s), but
that would not change the core of the YANG language?  E.g. rather than
adding a new "ephemeral" keyword to YANG, the I2RS extension would define
the "ephemeral" extension statement, which would then be annotated in I2RS
specific modules as "i2rs:ephemeral true".

I think that the latter approach would be much more preferable if that is
feasible.

Similar comments to NETCONF and RESTCONF may equally apply (I've not read
your drafts yet).  I.e. if possible, it is probably better to define
optional I2RS specific extensions than attempt to bake I2RS support into the
NETCONF or RESTCONF protocols themselves.

Thanks,
Rob

On 11/03/2017 19:37, Susan Hares wrote:
> URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hares-netmod-i2rs-yang-04.txt
> Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-netmod-i2rs-yang/
> Htmlized:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hares-netmod-i2rs-yang-04
> Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-hares-netmod-i2rs-yang-04

>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
tools.ietf.org.