Re: [core] Questions/comments on draft-ietf-core-sid-04

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Tue, 17 July 2018 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC58F131031; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 11:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MPwQT4LHWOFc; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 11:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB81F130FF6; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 11:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16112; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1531853884; x=1533063484; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=aOj/dkaUUxWAuwIegc1bHv3a/eYKkTPKt7I6gqOj5GM=; b=A6ZnVzffcPhdODmSzzet2W642EJOBTC/ygV+CBCia7hlIrhv2zLZpGNs GZ5EtbMcPQlPIBIvwZXjqMjwS89CMeoAdWb/wDHuGV1rPO+Nj+WezBZ20 GIE4sgyxxltTbWAUG5wHsR7ZErQJCkiGZDXvVO88GE+kNhBOhV/oNA4TI U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DdAQADO05b/5BdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJTdmN/KAqDc5RBggyQKoUPgXoLG4RRAheCWSE2FgECAQECAQECbRwMhTYBAQEEI1YQAgEIEQMBAQEoAwICAjAUCQgCBAENBRuDBQGBG2SrMoEuiiiJAoFXP4E4gmqFGxYIgkMxgiQCiFGJIIdrCQKGCIkdjWWRbQIRFIEkJAEwJoEscBU7KgGCPgmCHBeJKoRtb4wmgRoBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,366,1526342400"; d="scan'208,217";a="207139964"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Jul 2018 18:58:03 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com [173.37.102.12]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w6HIw3P3006672 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 17 Jul 2018 18:58:03 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 13:58:03 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 13:58:03 -0500
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Michel Veillette <Michel.Veillette@trilliant.com>, "draft-ietf-core-sid@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-core-sid@ietf.org>
CC: "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Questions/comments on draft-ietf-core-sid-04
Thread-Index: AQHUHfjMVEMw08sPw0STjWF2kfjwDKSTtudggAAeFwA=
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 18:58:03 +0000
Message-ID: <319BA6CD-D03B-4BE2-B337-24C3B4C6DE9D@cisco.com>
References: <510E8389-232B-4AFC-B359-CB9330C15280@cisco.com> <DM5PR06MB2777CEBF0002C7BA8E1485A29A5C0@DM5PR06MB2777.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR06MB2777CEBF0002C7BA8E1485A29A5C0@DM5PR06MB2777.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.b.0.180311
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.86.246.55]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_319BA6CDD03B4BE2B33724C3B4C6DE9Dciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/9ml9ZsMGaXnXiMxPnX3x3NlgLtA>
Subject: Re: [core] Questions/comments on draft-ietf-core-sid-04
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 18:58:27 -0000

Hi Michel,

Sorry you are right, it’s 1 key per list. Adding unique would be good.

Regards,
Reshad.

From: Michel Veillette <Michel.Veillette@trilliant.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 2:35 PM
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-core-sid@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-core-sid@ietf.org>
Cc: "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Questions/comments on draft-ietf-core-sid-04

Hi Reshad

About "why not have 2 levels instead"

The current single list solution has been selected for its simplicity to implement the sip.py pyang plugin.
The size of this module was not a concern since we had no intents to implement this module in the constrained device itself.
'yang-data' might be used in the next version to clarify this point.

About "Would it be useful to have another key based on sid".

Unless I'm wrong, YANG allow a single 'key' statement per list.
However, a 'unique' statement can be added to verify the uniqueness of this leaf.

Regards,
Michel

From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) [mailto:rrahman@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 2:06 PM
To: draft-ietf-core-sid@ietf.org
Cc: core@ietf.org
Subject: Questions/comments on draft-ietf-core-sid-04

Hi,

For “list items”:

  1.  It is a list with composite key namespace and identifier, why not have 2 levels instead, i.e. a namespace list (keyed on namespace) and each namespace has a list of identifiers (keyed on identifier)
  2.  Would it be useful to have another key based on sid?

Regards,
Reshad.