Last Modified: 2004-09-22
|Done||Working Group formed|
|Done||Submit initial Netconf Protocol draft|
|Done||Submit initial Netconf over (transport-TBD) draft|
|Dec 03||Begin Working Group Last Call for the Netconf Protocol draft|
|Jan 04||Begin Working Group Last Call for the Netconf over (transport-TBD) draft|
|Mar 04||Submit final version of the Netconf Protocol draft to the IESG|
|Apr 04||Submit final version of the Netconf over (transport-TBD) draft to the IESG|
NETCONF WG Meeting Minutes
November 11, 2004
Minutes by Juergen Schoenwaelder, edited by Andy Bierman
- NETCONF WG Document Discussion
The meeting started with a review of changes in the Protocol I-D since the last 03 draft. See the slides for the detailed list of changes. No questions were raised regarding the changes.
Working group last call is running so people interested should carefully read the documents. Last call deadline is November 28, 2004.
2. Data Models
The group agreed to defer all data model issues to future work. This basically affects the mechanism to retrieve session ids. One proposal was to just do the instance document, others wanted to leave the definition in with a big warning that the definition is non-normative and subject to be replaced in the future. Yet others believed leaving it in casts this into stone forever. Another suggestion was to use a separate namespace so that this can be changed later on without loosing backwards compatibility.
The group discussed the need for a minimal data model in the document, and was polled on whether to contain a minimal data model or no data model at all. Rough consensus in the room seemed to be to have the minimal data model (session-id element) specified. Andy Bierman will check on the list with a concrete proposal.
After the meeting, a proposal was made on the mailing list to remove the netconf-state data model completely, since the session-id of the lock owner is returned in an <rpc-error> element.
Any other netconf-state data model issues? None were raised.
3. Lock semantics
Wes Hardaker asks the question whether the lock should prevent read access. Interaction between copy-config and locking. Wes wants to have a recommendation that you should lock both configs if you do a copy-config. Wes really wanted to have a statement that locks should be raised together at the beginning of a transaction. Wes says that this affects also the behavior of get-config while there is someone modifying a configuration. The document should probably spell out these issues so that NETCONF users do not make false assumptions. Phil Shafer also suggests that there might be cases where one want to get access to configuration data, even if there is an existing lock.
Wes says this is an instance of the general problem that the IETF does a poor job in documenting how something is being used. How much policy does belong in the mechanism specification? People are encouraged to write how to use NETCONF guides.
4. XSD vs. Relax NG
The question was raised whether the XSD in the protocol I-D should be converted to RELAX NG. The conclusion was that XSD for the protocol specification is fine as it is read by protocol implementors, which is different from data models which have a much larger audience of readers/writers.
5. Data Modeling Standards Efforts
The question was raised whether this is the right time for work to begin on standard data modeling for NETCONF (done by the IETF). Several organizations are currently looking at this area. There was concern raised regarding multiple data models. Andy says that there were always multiple data models and NETCONF won't change that, since standards work usually trails proprietary work. [ed. - Some people believe that basing standards on existing practice is a Good Thing.] There is a need to have common data models, the question is to do bottom up or top down. The real hard part is to identify and agree on the semantics. A bottom-up approach allows agreement to be reached on basic building blocks in a reasonable time-frame, but there is some risk of poor data organization and consistency across modules.
Bert Wijnen raises the question whether this session turns into a BOF. He suggests to close the NETCONF session and move this to an informal discussion. Dave Harrington remarks that the question whether NETCONF wants to be re-chartered is a WG discussion item. However, since this topic was not on the agenda, the Bert suggested to close the meeting and continue with an informal discussion.
WG meeting closed. Please read the drafts.