| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Thanks for bringing this up. Yes, IETF is encouraging modules to move to NMDA-style as stated in drafts below. We’ve discussed during the previous call when IETF brought this idea up, but no conclusion that
time. Given the progress in IETF, it would be good to get back to it. My suggestion is to make the modification before we go to D2.0. The thing is, the ietf-interface module itself which most of our modules augments is not transferred to NMDA-style yet. Also, Robert is working on tools that can automatically change
the previous modules to NMDA-style ones which can ease our work. Otherwise, we can do it manually as well. Any suggestion/thought? Best Regards, Yan 发件人: Duane Remein [mailto:Duane.Remein@xxxxxxxxxx]
All (but mostly to Rob W), It is my understanding that IETF recently took a decision to change how NETCONF/RESTCONF handles datastores for YANG models. New models no longer separate configuration and state trees and existing models should deprecate
state trees and move their contents to a combined configuration/state tree (see links copied below) Do we need to make any modifications to our modules in light of the recent actions of IETF to combine configuration and state trees?
Best Regards, Duane Here are relevant drafts: * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dsdt-netconf-restconf-nmda * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines And presentations: * https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-netconf-draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-intro-00.pdf * https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-netmod-sessa-nmda-guidelines-01.pdf (*) * https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-netmod-sessa-nmda-qa-01.pdf FutureWei Technologies Inc. Director, Access R&D Raleigh, NC |