IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lmap] /capabilities/task* vs /capabilities/tasks/task*

"Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US)" <timothy.carey@nokia.com> Thu, 05 January 2017 09:32 UTC

Return-Path: <timothy.carey@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5452D129475 for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 01:32:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 9ZtbguEeAqKn for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 01:32:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-us.alcatel-lucent.com (us-hpatc-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.18.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A91FD128E19 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 01:32:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us70tumx1.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.18.13]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id D35343C3224F3; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 09:32:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.63]) by us70tumx1.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id v059Wir5000702 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 5 Jan 2017 09:32:44 GMT
Received: from US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70twxchhub04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.36]) by us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id v059Wg1I003540 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 Jan 2017 09:32:44 GMT
Received: from US70UWXCHMBA05.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.10.74]) by US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 04:32:43 -0500
From: "Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US)" <timothy.carey@nokia.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Thread-Topic: [lmap] /capabilities/task* vs /capabilities/tasks/task*
Thread-Index: AQHSZfwRtfWHXaN6T0mH3TVV6/TYdKEnMX0QgAIO+wCAAGCf4A==
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 09:32:43 +0000
Message-ID: <9966516C6EB5FC4381E05BF80AA55F77012A820D4A@US70UWXCHMBA05.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <20170103163223.GA7367@elstar.local> <9966516C6EB5FC4381E05BF80AA55F77012A81C5C8@US70UWXCHMBA05.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <20170104224556.GA9362@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20170104224556.GA9362@elstar.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.16]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/kQnPohCzHx26yHqGoh1XnJgBfvg>
Cc: "lmap@ietf.org" <lmap@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lmap] /capabilities/task* vs /capabilities/tasks/task*
X-BeenThere: lmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Large Scale Measurement of Access network Performance <lmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lmap/>
List-Post: <mailto:lmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 09:32:47 -0000

Juergen,


I would agree that option B is the correct approach - but the action should fail, correct?

BR,
Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 4:46 PM
To: Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US) <timothy.carey@nokia.com>
Cc: lmap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lmap] /capabilities/task* vs /capabilities/tasks/task*

On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 08:27:37PM +0000, Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US) wrote:
> Juergen,
> The task capabilities just point to the registry objects (registry and roles) - they don't have programs assigned.
>

In the information model; the data model also allows to have entries without a registry object which identifies a program to run (and this is what I have implemented).

The question, however, is what exactly happens if a configured task refers to a capability task that does not exist. There are different
options:

a) The configuration is invalid. This is problematic in a YANG context
   since the idea is that validity of a configuration should not
   depend on the specific runtime capabilities of a system.

b) The configuration may be valid but of configured tasks that refer
   to tasks that are not among the capabilities are not executed.

>From a YANG perspective, semantics b) seem to make most sense. But then the question is how this plays with actions (that refer to configured tasks) and schedules (that refer to actions). There are again differnet options:

b1) An action that refers to a configured task that references a
    non-existing capability is simply not executed.

b2) Any schedule that includes an action that that refers to a
    configured task that references a non-existing capability is not
    executed.

Recall that we have differnet execution modes. For pipelines schedules, b2) might make sense, for parallel or sequential schedules
b1) might make sense.

>From the discussion around intended and applied configs, it seems b2 seems to make most sense because b2) essentially says that any actions and their schedules that reference non-existing capabilities are not part of the applied config, that is, the applied config becomes a proper subset of the schedules (and not a subset of the actions of the schedules).

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email