Re: [dhcwg] URIs for backend storage

ianfarrer@gmx.com Tue, 20 March 2018 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712DC127698 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 07:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-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 cK45StGreDuY for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 07:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7756B12EB1E for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 07:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-8e66.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.142.102]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101 [212.227.17.174]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LaKaw-1eKJUw186Y-00m3Gm; Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:18:12 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: ianfarrer@gmx.com
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1803192228290.8194@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:18:11 +0000
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <560E656C-E7E4-49C5-BD1E-96AC43A10B2B@gmx.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1803192228290.8194@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:XaMTgQgVHCBS577rF0aIca9+DUuFXr67FFF+yO1ldi5ocax/r1q 24DyPWOweac2j4ZEx5lBnKztcF2FDYjnyl/B3lh0WZ3KGAh+mueKXdQjpM0gCT6bKbHNAOR V7esrEDPyuknFTSiBQnwP1KtdNIiwzDaqWoXtlvzuFKjuGMlF35QRuwOdi5ziTn56AH2lul vLtdHlBnJBHJN9SDRuNJw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:OoPOt6nvchQ=:G6GTWqO+Sl0pt/bDQZCN9O yWsZPcuwyKPDg4Pr2SBCwVWx15eCww1r4ahmGh5ubSNNrBV/TBCrrVKErL22x5JyO479Ok462 6uokY9fggreCqprqe6Kg0FcTbNLWnQT+aSUYeAQlOKTzSSUGd5HCoUZpQ3UwXiO5kpUjPV45L HzG54LPE89PCORnA+OxjzZx0C466Z1FeHMgKZInQ0paDF2GHf9IU4IL2BE61c4agc4ZBBdpwM 8A6V9NgPN5BcbDQOLbrUMsI8zmi4eMAgixFqpEyi/6gJWn7Y8SgFaxEevp9Zn+vER3edayqOP aFi9a237JpkiFgY/gIoo6F0GhumYuxqeXAOsNpNLUP3UbxmGd1Tog4+SeTmowdlmX/EQ+2yUo tBbiEdtQ9FazzrD9sSsUMV/kuIh1EyngJiQ1KhiS3JR7fZXIBU/nCspkupdpGbP4QalZDkH0f Cky0VLuY9cBYFZhnJulMEGLu8PJNSr0UU5CAI5RW1IIAjZ4mV10MGuhiMHiT0T781HbNU+4a9 EnCQKeC8/kVx2QRxJEQHE/64RexOpGs+t2Bo59Ro+9KV9tqkF0Bppj8GaxCNN3/X8oWrMQgS/ h5vDEJSaojpfKoOEGUwkyciNrT3cp6vjuZ+6s0glCFAeOF1LY0fjfLITcB8DbOt/a9OeacSIp UeWOYFimKi2yURN3NGcPrSMrVypNYFthX3UeMmVIvBdvXsifZtExR8tjqce8tEiwvsWxJGiM2 1Xg3uRU0cW79TN0vXT4/aE5w3LVb9z9B7dalP6PX0ruhAAFy5zQwsD4pzFQAUNfN2yGsGJdGN g7DHFe9GAcKu0D63mPWkRg/hIL2d+eu7gxLCbRMJTyFMH7DXbI=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/KJ_vuyTYogHW-H_tYpp_trevKlw>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] URIs for backend storage
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:18:27 -0000

Hi Tony,

Thanks for the input. In some previous drafts I’ve worked on, the URI has proved to be problematic in that there are some protocol URI’s that are conspicuous by their absence (SSH?).

However, in this case, I don’t expect it to be a problem if de-facto URIs are well enough implemented. The URI leaf would be purely a place to store this information and wouldn’t place any additional requirements that specific (standard) URI formats are supported.

If there’s no objections, we’ll add this into the next update.

Thanks,
Ian

> On 19. Mar 2018, at 22:39, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:
> 
> One of the questions that arose in the DHC WG meeting this afternoon was
> about a standard YANG netconf way to describe backend storage for leases.
> IIRC, someone asked if a URL would be enough and the general response was
> um, maybe?
> 
> There is a de-facto quasi-standard for database connection URLs used by
> JDBC - pretty much all SQL databases and some noSQL databases (including
> Cassandra) have a spec for describing connection details in a URL,
> including when there are multiple possible servers.
> 
> Of course, instead of a JDBC URL, you could also configure your DHCP
> server with a file: URL for old school lease storage.
> 
> I found out about this from PostgreSQL -
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/libpq-connect.html#LIBPQ-CONNSTRING
> 
> I haven't found a good description of C* JDBC URLs other than
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30743272/what-is-the-connection-url-to-be-used-for-cassandra#30795079
> which suggests that they use `--` for separating hostnames (which from
> my pedantic hostmaster point of view is mildly problematic...!)
> 
> Tony.
> -- 
> f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
> Sole, Lundy, Fastnet: Northeast 5 to 7, becoming variable 3 or 4. Moderate or
> rough. Mainly fair. Good.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg