[core] Comments on draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-06

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Mon, 09 July 2018 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@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 56D86130E3D; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 08:00:33 -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_MED=-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 2Yylnuqfz-ln; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 08:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EED1130E23; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 08:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4179; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1531148430; x=1532358030; h=to:subject:from:message-id:date:mime-version; bh=jP4cPQrHt81d1XCZGMRiZGybzfl9ex34CpUh7GwwQWc=; b=IHACoISTJ2p4tCqf38zUHzQpso0+31mdOj3jMJxmtsh/PoOa26gxYz+5 Tjyr0iw3Gxq+gtR07L0d28DBA3STscuUva2HKH0jR1sBvY4ROd9cxo3+0 3zB5lrQxvOV0Xl0NSdfQXeSSpqRCtfXGc3kVlPcZ1UULQMSa65Wg5hpZ4 Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DoAQATd0Nb/xbLJq1cGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEIAQEBAYJTgleEIohjjTKQTocIC4dUOBQBAgEBAgEBAm0ohWB1PgJgDAgBAYMcggCqCoIcH4Q8g2qBOopEP4EPJ4pjglUCmU8JgUCNXgaBQoZUJYUijDyFVIFYISaBLDMaCBsVgyWCIxeOGD6PAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,330,1526342400"; d="scan'208,217";a="5006729"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jul 2018 15:00:28 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.105] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-105.cisco.com [10.63.23.105]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w69F0Sk3006528; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 15:00:28 GMT
To: draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor@ietf.org, core@ietf.org
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <6ff65b2e-ab4f-5d92-8fff-68c08584682e@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 16:00:28 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------54F88AC65D1A669F69408B19"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/niSft8RtwcsrO1bIBZ1X8OO1DA4>
Subject: [core] Comments on draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-06
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: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 15:00:34 -0000

Hi,

I've read this draft, and think that it is well written.

There is one area of the draft that is somewhat unclear to me when using 
SID encodings:  Is the root node(s) of a request or a response always an 
absolute SID value, or could it still be a delta?

In particular:

Sec 2.1 indicates that the translation to/from SID deltas is stateless, 
which implies to me that the root node(s) of a request/response would 
always be an absolute SID value.

Sec 4.2.1 gives an example using a absolute SID for the top node.  It 
then has this text: "

    On the other hand, if the serializer is aware of the parent SID, 1716
    in the case 'system-state' container, root data nodes are encoded
    using deltas.

"

I think that it is quite plausible that the serializer may know the SIDs 
for all nodes in the data tree, which the text implies it could then use 
a relative SID for the top node.  Particularly, if the top level node 
was explicit from the request.

Hence, I think that this draft could probably benefit in being more 
explicit on exactly when a top level node uses an absolute SID, and in 
what scenarios it may end up using a a relative SID. If this distinction 
is down to the protocol being used, then perhaps that could be stated?

One other nit:

Section 4.4.1 says "delta encoding can be performed", but I think that 
this should probably be "delta encoding MUST be performed".

Thanks,
Rob