1. Report from the DataStore Design Team Breakout Session
draft-nmdsdt-netmod-revised-datastores-00
IETF97

2. Breakout Session Meet Wednesday 1:30-7pm
Lots of questions and clarifications
No changes in the design
A positive experience
Walked thru Implications and Issues

3. New Issues in the draft Examples More descriptive text Timeliness
Data in <running> should appear in sync with <intended>
Data in <applied> should appear in sync with <operational-state>
"Factory default" config

4. Example 1: simple config
Straight-forward config example
Full walk through
edit-config->running->intended->applied->op
Discuss templates and inactives

5. Example 2: system-controlled
Loopback interface
implicitly created by system
In <operational-state>
<interface origin="system><name>lo0<...>
Part 2 adds user config
Now explicitly in <running> and <intended>
<interface origin="static"><name>lo0<...>

6. Example 3: delayed cleanup
BGP Peer list
Explicitly created in <running>
Fully populated
In <operational-state> with origin="system"
local-address and local-port
Delete five peers and commit
Peers continue to appear until "released"
Sockets closed and local resources released
In both <applied> and <operational-state>

7. Example 4: ephemeral data
Interfaces created in <running>
No installed FRU
Interfaces do not appear in <applied> or
<operational-state>
When FRU is plugged in:
Interface is created and populated with data
Unconfigured ports of installed FRUs will exist
Statistics are initialized to zeroes (like new)
Key is that FRUs do not break config validation
Only FRU-related, not "logical" interfaces
LAG interface with no installed member interfaces

8. Example 5: dynamic data Unnamed dynamic data source
Don't want to address the i2rs issues here
Data merged with <intended> into <active>
Issue: fix arrows for "after" control-plane datastores?

9. Issues <active>
No need
constraints on <applied> and <operational-state>
SHOULD for "when"
"expected" for others
No point modeling rules that aren't followed, but Postel Principle applies
<applied> in RESTCONF: take to NETCONF WG
Disagreement of goals of RESTCONF
Does it need all NETCONF capabilities?
Is it the "Easy" button?