Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits
Rodney Cummings <rodney.cummings@ni.com> Tue, 17 November 2015 15:51 UTC
Return-Path: <rodney.cummings@ni.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65ADE1A1BDA for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 07:51:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 iWlOjYTQejMT for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 07:51:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0133.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ECB51A1B7C for <core@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 07:51:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BN1PR04MB424.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.58.153) by BN1PR04MB424.namprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.141.58.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.325.17; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:51:47 +0000
Received: from BN1PR04MB424.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.133]) by BN1PR04MB424.namprd04.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.133]) with mapi id 15.01.0325.003; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:51:47 +0000
From: Rodney Cummings <rodney.cummings@ni.com>
To: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>, Core <core@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits
Thread-Index: AQHRIRwteQFUWYBvd0yDLSdmSQn7rZ6gWGHw
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 15:51:47 +0000
Message-ID: <BN1PR04MB424BAAB4D9E771D891BD06F921D0@BN1PR04MB424.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <0559fa310f26530d1c1e89c1ed64b7aa@xs4all.nl>
In-Reply-To: <0559fa310f26530d1c1e89c1ed64b7aa@xs4all.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rodney.cummings@ni.com;
x-originating-ip: [130.164.62.33]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN1PR04MB424; 5:KhsyRwHymA1Y1zF4aXsN13OCb/zOJ2gEX/S7XnJZ1Q6eako8LwfizmQcPVPLCBNYvQ4ePYyYfiLseobcBgbFgCxB9wvO9oqxZRTftZ7jBkzKe4TcUobe5fl/GjVm8MORoX2nw4qg4CyA2B4J/ffXrQ==; 24:JQqhuDFCUgKM0sQVdBGtq8AmLGwprpNrwQ4en3Dk/mEOx04l8I3XoO0tiX31nrIDN2IvmMY47rQaNGiQRCUJcA8hOjvV0vT5KYVKM//JS9s=; 20:0CBkI3XCQjWRhJP0dvEnK/xvyrlufhmukiWlOL0Hq4g4N4m8KUITBt5PpYkztI5Cd3m2rYodZwK2k7Ov+BBCRw==
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN1PR04MB424;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN1PR04MB4246E12B3EF5C2A9138889C921D0@BN1PR04MB424.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(520078)(10201501046)(3002001); SRVR:BN1PR04MB424; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN1PR04MB424;
x-forefront-prvs: 07630F72AD
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(13464003)(54094003)(377454003)(53754006)(189002)(199003)(40100003)(5007970100001)(5008740100001)(15975445007)(5004730100002)(5003600100002)(11100500001)(2950100001)(2900100001)(5002640100001)(102836002)(101416001)(50986999)(66066001)(76176999)(54356999)(19580395003)(107886002)(99286002)(97736004)(33656002)(105586002)(81156007)(5001770100001)(5001960100002)(189998001)(106356001)(106116001)(86362001)(19580405001)(5001920100001)(586003)(87936001)(92566002)(122556002)(74316001)(76576001)(10400500002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR04MB424; H:BN1PR04MB424.namprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ni.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ni.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Nov 2015 15:51:47.0874 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 87ba1f9a-44cd-43a6-b008-6fdb45a5204e
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN1PR04MB424
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/ww4xtJrkM3XXrhfnmG53lBSvY9E>
Subject: Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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 Nov 2015 15:51:52 -0000
Thanks Peter, At this time, proceeding with 4 drafts sounds good to me. Nevertheless, as we get closer to progressing these in a WG, I think we should transition to 2 drafts: a) YANG to CBOR mapping ( i) ) b) Select either hash ( ii) ) or registry ( iii) ), and merge that with the function set ( iv) ) for a single draft As for the motivation and use cases, I wonder if it might be helpful to state our assumptions for the client side. I would claim that: 1. A client cannot assume that the YANG modules implemented by the server have been enhanced specifically for CoMI/CoOL. 2. A client cannot assume that the YANG objects of a module are distinct from a hashing perspective. 3. A client cannot assume that a new revision of a module is backward compatible to an older revision of that module (i.e. old is proper subset). If these assumptions are correct, then the client must perform some processing of the server's YANG modules prior to using CoMI/CoOL, and that may help to decide between hash/registry. If these assumptions are incorrect, it might be useful to discuss it in the draft, to provide some background rationale. Rodney -----Original Message----- From: core [mailto:core-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of peter van der Stok Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:41 AM To: Core <core@ietf.org> Subject: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Hi all, During the Yokohama meeting I proposed to split the CoMI/CoOl drafts into three parts as suggested by Juergen Schoenwalder in a separate earlier communication. This e_mail sets out in more detail why the proposed split is a good one. The proposed three parts are: 1) The Function Set (sections 2, 3, 4 in CoMI; sections 2, 3, 7 in CoOL) 2) The YANG to CBOR mapping (section 6 in CoMI; section 5 in CoOL) 3) The YANG name compression (section 5 in CoMI; section 6 in CoOL) The split has two advantages: - the parts 2 and 3 can be used in other contexts, e.g. RESTCONF - It separates out the issues which need to be solved to merge CoOL and CoMI. I come to the generation of 4 drafts: i) The YANG to CBOR mapping. ii) Hashing of YANG names iii) Managed identifier assignment to YANG names iv) The Function set specification Ad i) I don't expect a long list of issues for the merging. However, it may be advisable to submit the draft to the netmod WG, where much of the YANG expertise exists and the draft can be aligned with the YANG to JSON draft. Ad ii and iii) These approaches are very different and merit independent drafts. The CoRE WG can decide to adopt 1, 2, or none of the two drafts. It is also possible that drafts get submitted to other WGs. Ad iv) In my view the alignment of the two existing approaches, CoMI and CoOL, may take some time. I will be happy if in Buenos Aires we have a list with issues, accompanying motivation, and use cases. Is this a valid approach? Comments are solicited. Peter -- Peter van der Stok vanderstok consultancy mailto: consultancy@vanderstok.org _______________________________________________ core mailing list core@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
- [core] CoMI Cool draft splits peter van der Stok
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Rodney Cummings
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Andy Bierman
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Michel Veillette
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Michel Veillette
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Rodney Cummings
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Andy Bierman
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Michel Veillette
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits peter van der Stok
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits peter van der Stok
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Somaraju Abhinav
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits peter van der Stok
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Somaraju Abhinav
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits peter van der Stok
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Somaraju Abhinav
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Andy Bierman
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Michel Veillette
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Rodney Cummings
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Somaraju Abhinav
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Andy Bierman
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Andy Bierman
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Somaraju Abhinav
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Rodney Cummings
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Andy Bierman
- Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits Rodney Cummings