Re: [lmap] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-lmap-yang-11: (with COMMENT)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jürgen,
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:47:09PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
>> On 3/16/2017 11:26 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 02:27:31AM -0700, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> COMMENT:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> - No objection to the publication, but the following phrasing puzzles
>>>> me.
>>>>
>>>>      It aims to be consistent with the
>>>>      LMAP Information Model [I-D.ietf-lmap-information-model].
>>>>
>>>> Actually, the data model is based on information model, right?
>>> I changed this to "It is based on the LMAP Information Model []" in
>>> my sources.
>>>> >From the charter:
>>>> 5. The Report protocol and the associated data model: The definition of
>>>>
>>>> how the Report is delivered from a MA to a Collector; this includes a
>>>> Data Model consistent with the Information Model plus a transport
>>>> protocol (to be selected, perhaps REST-style HTTP(s) or IPFIX).
>>>>
>>>> This is reason why the information model is standard track in the
>>>> charter.
>>>> Therefore the information model must be a normative reference, right?
>>> I don't quite understand the logic above. That said, I can go either
>>> way (means I do not really care whether the reference is in the
>>> normative of informative section).
>> The question is: which one is the source of truth? The IM or the DM?
> When it comes to implementation, I think it is the YANG model you have
> to conform to. If the YANG model has a conflict with the information
> model somewhere, we need to discuss and resolve this. I do not think
> we can state one of them is automatically right.
You're not helping :-)
"It is based on the LMAP Information Model []" is already good change.
Informative versus normative is a smaller issue IMO.
A small preference for normative, but I'll leave it to the responsible 
AD to decide.

The rest below was discussed. Let's move on.

Regards, Benoit
>
>>>> - one question about the typedefs naming.
>>>> It would nice to be able to reuse YANG constructs, typedefs being of
>>>> them
>>>> We created http://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/yang-search.php with
>>>> that goal in mind.
>>>> 	=> insert "identifier"
>>>> 	=> select typedef
>>>> Some of the typedefs are so generically named in LMAP YANG module:
>>>> identifier, tag, cycle-number, wildcard, etc.
>>>> Do you expect YANG designers to reuse them outside of LMAP? Some of them,
>>>> I guess so
>>>> Should the other ones be renamed with LMAP in mind. Ex:
>>>> lmap-identifier?
>>>> In other words, are all the ietf-lmap-common.yang typedef common?
> I do not care. I leave it up to whoever wants to reuse them to decide.
> The definitions are clearly common for the LMAP modules, everything
> beyond that is up in the air.
>
> Recall the SnmpAdminString where the name indicates it is for SNMP
> adminitrative names but then later it got used in many places as a
> common string type supporting UTF-8. Prediction of future use and
> encoding that into names is difficult.
>
>>> When you reuse definitions from ietf-lmap-common, they will appear in
>>> your YANG module as:
>>>
>>>        type lmap:identifier;
>> Sure.
>>> Adding lmap to the type name just makes things look unnecessarily
>>> ugly:
>> ... from a LMAP point of view.
>>>        type lmap:lmap-identifier;
>> I come from this angle:
>> http://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/yang-search.php
>> And I search for any identifier typedef I could reuse.
>> I would prefer to have typedefs called LMAP-xxx is they're not really
>> common.
> Obviously, the typedefs were written primarily for LMAP
> purposes. However, for all typedefs, I can imagine situations where
> they may be reused outside LMAP. The groupings are more likely LMAP
> specific but even then I can also imagine that perhaps some future
> IPPM modules may want to use them. Predicting future is difficult.
>
> /js
>