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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 16 March 2017 12:54 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.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 47D3C12948A; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 05:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 OtcrkLu0p9lX; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 05:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79DA8129464; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 05:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4075; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1489668868; x=1490878468; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FYCOrSrPlxL/KqBC8aY2N8T6eiP57ZmnEDhfp299QcY=; b=Ttq0id2HjsUC3zG2RRaXXjEdHGHQ98+dQc8lMtG1sD9SCJwkRSggKm/1 cKrOgyZsuisQSFezDJuhQ267bYB6Ywd51QekPI8etx9fqk4r6WAIQPUFn feQW+my30ghoDSbSRymZzaB2Mpy18/1gS8Uqe5vwlpKYdq9HKkOPd3LWJ g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AGAQBQispY/xbLJq1EGhkBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYQyKmCNcHOQZZMwgg+CDiqFeAKDQRgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUWAQU?= =?us-ascii?q?yAQVRCxguVwYBDAgBAQWJdw4xskSKUgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBASCGToIFg?= =?us-ascii?q?mqCcIdJBYkbhkCMapI+ilaGU4oVgSmIDx84gQQjFggXFYUYHYFkPzUBiUcBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,172,1486425600"; d="scan'208";a="650469769"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Mar 2017 12:54:25 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2GCsONc009189; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 12:54:25 GMT
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lmap-yang@ietf.org, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>, lmap-chairs@ietf.org, lmap@ietf.org, bill.wu@huawei.com
References: <148965645153.14126.14781157103683840032.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170316102616.GC59698@elstar.local> <15ca48cf-f407-2fb3-6ce8-dafffa0c1c0e@cisco.com> <20170316122046.GD59698@elstar.local>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <9dc3768b-a059-af33-6d3b-199a741de100@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:54:21 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170316122046.GD59698@elstar.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/qdnwIgyM9E9rxXlvJv99txhCk1M>
Subject: Re: [lmap] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-lmap-yang-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 16 Mar 2017 12:54:30 -0000

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
>