Re: [babel] [netmod] NULL value for uint16

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

A related question.

> On Sep 14, 2021, at 12:31 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
>> On Sep 14, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Martin Björklund <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> Hi Juergen,
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 14, 2021, at 10:17 AM, Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 01:51:36PM +0000, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> As I mentioned, BBF TR-181 uses int with range 	-1:65535 with -1 meaning NULL. So I certainly have no issue with that approach. The language in RFC9046 was intended to make sure this approach was allowed, since this is how it's done in TR-181.
>>>>> I guess I am a bit surprised to learn that YANG doesn't seem to have a preferred way to handle this. Unfortunately, given my considerable lack of YANG expertise, I can't recommend the "right" way to model this in YANG. I can only insist that the model be able to express a value in the range 0 to 2^16 and NULL value for these parameters. 
>>>>> Independent of the fact that the words in RFC9046 don't seem to have expressed this perfectly clearly, that is absolutely the intent of those words. I apologize that the RFC9046 words don't seem to be sufficiently clear. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Since you do mention the possibility of using -1 for NULL, I'd like to understand who might find this approach unacceptable? The language in the information model was definitely intended to express the acceptability of using this approach from a Babel WG perspective (because I knew that's how it would be done in TR-181). Would this be unacceptable to people with YANG expertise? I think my preference would be to use this approach, since it would provide additional consistency between the TR-181 and YANG models.
>>>> 
>>>> If other data models use an extended integer range and -1 to indicate
>>>> a special case, then this may be a strong reason to do the same in the
>>>> IETF YANG data model. Consistency across data models is a value, in
>>>> particular for systems that may have to support multiple. While the
>>>> conversion of different notations no hard, its one more thing to
>>>> potentially get wrong.
>>>> 
>>>> If you were starting with a blank sheet of paper, then the YANG idiom
>>>> would likely be to use a union of a 16-bit integer and a special
>>>> (string) value, which might even be of type empty.
>>> 
>>> I hear two suggestions on what the “other” construct should be in the union statement. Use ‘empty’ as you suggest, or use ‘boolean’. Are there any pros/cons for either of the approaches?
>> 
>> 'boolean' doesn't seem right, since that would mean that you could see
>> the values 'true' | 'false' | <uint16>.
>> 
>> If you want a union I suggest a union with one enum, perhaps:
>> 
>>  type union {
>>    type enumeration {
>>      enum null;
>>    }
>>    type uint16;
>>  }
>> 
>> But Jürgens point about using a solution that other data models use
>> makes sense.
> 
> That would mean something like this:
> 
> type union {
>   type empty;
>   type uint16;
> }
> 
> Right?

RFC 7950 says that the empty type cannot have a default value. The model had the value 0, which represented NULL as the default value for some of the attributes. With the suggested change, is there a way in the union for the empty type to be the default?

If not, I will have to use Martin’s suggestion above of using a null enumeration.

Thanks.

> 
>> 
>> Yet another alternative could be to not instantiate this leaf when the
>> value in the information model is null.
> 
> I have never been very clear on what happens when the leaf goes from a defined value to null. In other words, how do you “un-instantiate” a leaf? Do you delete it?
> 
> Cheers.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> /martin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> One of the reasons to have no common approach to these kind of
>>>> questions is to provide the flexibility needed to do the right thing
>>>> in different contexts. Of course, you may want to stay consistent in a
>>>> data model or a collection of related data model.
>>>> 
>>>> I skimmed RFC 8407 and it seems we do not have text discussion this
>>>> specific situation. Perhaps we should have text, perhaps I have
>>>> overlooked it. ;-) I think there are different patterns to choose from
>>>> to handle this situation with their various pros and cons.
>>>> 
>>>> /js
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>>>> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>>>> Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/ <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>>
>>> 
>>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]