Re: [IPFIX] RFC 6728 IETF IPFIX Yang Discussion

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 09 January 2018 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55F7B12D852 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 08:02:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.509
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.509 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_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 s-bpeYfAIi47 for <ipfix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 08:01:59 -0800 (PST)
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 0660B126D0C for <ipfix@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 08:01:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=18728; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1515513719; x=1516723319; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=bAwJIz1s0C6voiP5lfha09pkngvDMyakO6xf3TkSt9I=; b=HpyTBMiipEpYQtV7Y868a9MTHNYcA92/+aEAjFWpg1hmzsod8ahWizaD 2A0nUWowMwyHc6YzcLgc+ELfTC3MWAiLB5dt8Efs4HONqFjB6Bme6c4no y0XnQ/e7JYht+kxRWBR3iOlGNSwaQOSplPRmjJkMc9h7+PHDFHM7kySCz 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DoAQBA5lRa/xbLJq1TChoBAQEBAQIBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBCAEBAQGCSoFcdCePH6ktChgBDIUWAoR8FQEBAQEBAQEBAWsohSQCBAEBK0E?= =?us-ascii?q?bC0YnMAYBDAYCAQGKLRCxMCaKGwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFhCCDb?= =?us-ascii?q?IFpKYMFgUmBZgGBQ4YnBYpaFYc3h0qJb4gKjTeCF4IAiAiHaophglSBXYgHgTw?= =?us-ascii?q?1I4FQMhoIGxU9giqCYIF4QDcBAYsoAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,336,1511827200"; d="scan'208,217";a="1310643"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jan 2018 16:01:57 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w09G1uJZ027673; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 16:01:56 GMT
To: Marta Seda <Marta.Seda@calix.com>, "ipfix@ietf.org" <ipfix@ietf.org>
References: <BY2PR0501MB173415D2260734074DD777CA9C1F0@BY2PR0501MB1734.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <91a9c743-8d4c-9fd9-c854-09ffeb09fc41@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:01:56 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR0501MB173415D2260734074DD777CA9C1F0@BY2PR0501MB1734.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------F6BE62A56D6563CDB3254B79"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipfix/EGgVAoN_EeV5U3hUXVjKx9tHTJM>
Subject: Re: [IPFIX] RFC 6728 IETF IPFIX Yang Discussion
X-BeenThere: ipfix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFIX WG discussion list <ipfix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipfix/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipfix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix>, <mailto:ipfix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 16:02:01 -0000

Hi Marta,
>
> Hello,
>
> I am reaching out to the IETF IPFIX mailing list  on some issues I 
> have run into with respect to RFC 6728 “Configuration Data Model for 
> the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)  and Packet Sampling (PSAMP) 
> Protocols”
>
>  1. RFC 6728 doesn’t meet the latest Yang Best Practices
>     (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#section-4.3.1).
>     Leaf identifiers are camel case (e.g., destinationAddress instead
>     of destination-address).  Are there any ongoing efforts to update
>     RFC 6728 to meet the latest best practices?
>
Not as far as I know.

Regards, Benoit
>
> 1.
>
>    Identifiers SHOULD follow a consistent naming pattern throughout the
>
>    module.  Only lower-case letters, numbers, and dashes SHOULD be used
>
>    in identifier names.  Upper-case characters and the underscore
>
>    character MAY be used if the identifier represents a well-known value
>
>    that uses these characters.
>
>    Identifiers SHOULD include complete words and/or well-known acronyms
>
>    or abbreviations.  Child nodes within a container or list SHOULD NOT
>
>    replicate the parent identifier. YANG identifiers are hierarchical
>
>    and are only meant to be unique within the the set of sibling nodes
>
>    defined in the same module namespace.
>
>    It is permissible to use common identifiers such as "name" or "id" in
>
>    data definition statements, especially if these data nodes share a
>
>    common data type.
>
>    Identifiers SHOULD NOT carry any special semantics that identify data
>
>    modelling properties.  Only YANG statements and YANG extension
>
>    statements are designed to convey machine readable data modelling
>
>    properties.  For example, naming an object "config" or "state" does
>
>    not change whether it is configuration data or state data.  Only
>
>    defined YANG statements or YANG extension statements can be used to
>
>    assign semantics in a machine readable format in YANG.
>
>  2. I generated the RFC 6728 yang tree (see attached).  The tcp and
>     udp exporting processes support a destinationIPAddress (line 400,
>     455) which is mandatory. The type is inet:ip-address.
>      1. A collector may be doing load balancing. Rather than managing
>         ip-addresses, the collector may be using DNS (an exporter
>         could resolve from the domain name where the collector is
>         located).
>      2. The collector address may be learnt via other methods (e.g.,
>         through DHCP options)
>      3. A choice statement to select what method to use seems more
>         appropriate than what is presently in RFC 6728.  For example
>         (use some shorthand)
>
> choice destination-method{
>
> case destination-address{
>
> leaf destination-address// rw with type inet:host
>
>                 }
>
> case dhcp-acquired-address{
>
> container dcp-acquired-address{
>
> leaf destination-ip-address inet-address //ro
>
>                 }
>
> }
>
>                                 However I can’t augment to ietf-ipfix 
> because destinationIPAddress is mandatory.  Can the group suggest 
> methods to (a) change the destinationIPAddress type and (b) allow a 
> choice?
>
>  3. RFC 6728 mandates SCTP transport.  I understand the logic behind
>     this (IETF prefers use of SCTP).  There are situations where sctp
>     is unnecessary and not supported (e.g., point to point
>     connection).  During netconf negotiations you can announce your
>     feature set (currently sctptransport is not a feature).  Is there
>     ongoing work in updating RFC 6728 to include sctptransport as a
>     feature (so that the device can announce whether or not it
>     supports sctptransport)?
>
> Regards
>
> Marta Seda
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPFIX mailing list
> IPFIX@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix