IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] progressing ietf-core-yang-cbor and ietf-core-sid

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 16 January 2020 23:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 3702A1200D7 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 15:17:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 kcMpaeTtWJiQ for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 15:17:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D8DB1200D6 for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 15:17:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC03B3897D; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 18:16:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF3CD98; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 18:17:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Core <core@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHRJ6-YUSn=MXGMtJT5tK3m9uR3U1K2xYd2UgW2MYkv6ig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <29380.1565102380@localhost> <BL0PR06MB50428065032ECC2AB3345F619AD70@BL0PR06MB5042.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <7505.1565633977@localhost> <BL0PR06MB50424C618A704460E4A8F8D99AA90@BL0PR06MB5042.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <18990.1577231446@localhost> <CAJFkdRyWOfCb4U09rEJ-ZMR3GUuk-rmQ+f3Fs164Mxs8qkeVuw@mail.gmail.com> <22612.1578626081@localhost> <CAJFkdRztFUxdGcdvtTgB=9c-e_BwDAgLTmVPJ+OB8-dgs1sGog@mail.gmail.com> <15754.1578789013@localhost> <CAJFkdRy_3pC37ZxzhTmzqRgWjwDvEFTuhu5Z8+_ktaJgoeOGfg@mail.gmail.com> <6025.1578939111@localhost> <F67A7C80-0955-4836-9B84-66CB52AB6FD9@tzi.org> <26398.1579112884@localhost> <0805B57C-3DCB-4601-976C-2D51CE812312@tzi.org> <14603.1579125396@localhost> <CFF6555D-85EF-42CB-B773-17116F9CC554@tzi.org> <18568.1579133839@localhost> <CABCOCHRJ6-YUSn=MXGMtJT5tK3m9uR3U1K2xYd2UgW2MYkv6ig@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 18:17:10 -0500
Message-ID: <12736.1579216630@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/SMzQllUHEA0NLJHHiv2B06qP5KE>
Subject: Re: [core] progressing ietf-core-yang-cbor and ietf-core-sid
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 23:17:13 -0000

    mcr> Revisions to the YANG which deprecate leafs and therefore create
    mcr> deprecated
    mcr> SID values are different: deployed code might still be using them.
    mcr> (If we are revising published YANG, then certainly can never reset
    mcr> the SID process!)

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote:
    andy> IMO there should be no concept of conformance status for a SID file.
    andy> It would be unwise to recover SIDs of obsolete YANG definitions.
    andy> It is safer to just burn the wasted range and keep range assignments
    andy> small.

I think that we are in agreement here.

    andy> Do SID files need to be identified by a 3-tuple {module-name,
    andy> module-revision, sid-file-revision }

    andy> foo@2020-01-15.1 -> { foo, 2020-01-15, 1 }

seems right to me.

    andy> I think a robust CORECONF client needs to know the 3-tuples of all the
    andy> SID files used by a server.
    andy> It is not enough just to know module@revision-date. We want to be able
    andy> to
    andy> rely on centralized (common) SID files and not have to retrieve each
    andy> one
    andy> from each server (because they doctored the real SID file or replaced
    andy> it with their own).

I think that you are saying that SID requires changes to the YANG module meta
data which I think is available in some YANG (meta-)module?
If we all agree that SID values can be deprecated, but never reused (And I do
not hear anyone saying otherwise), then the highest sid-file-revision is
always the correct one.

If we revise the module, and we get a new module-revision, I do not think
that we reset the sid file, nor do we reset the sid-file-revision.  Do you
concur?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email