IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mpls] YANG - Intended-Config & Applied-Config & Derived-State & Operational-state...grrrr... !!

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Thu, 31 March 2016 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <rajiva@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2519912D5AB; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 AOkrdPg6t3yF; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35F0912D0F4; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2456; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1459449848; x=1460659448; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=E/Ie59HHp+v6QNcEUqzZ9lafHklb0yKwCFdrX2v3Wyw=; b=WVQf4lkrtNCJcCfeiVC7yU4K8fOqrPtFcGpOEOU4EyrofAVf9V5+dKya 5pEvkVKVh9U5xnMsz88oysBzRRZuEBfrkWS7ULzv2sG1ki/SDYkOg0L6t hIWwDCPIxPogZjWBmPCbHqtLx/4FXuuJGWcSMN68JYi5frGQzjz8cp2SE s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ABAgDAbv1W/5pdJa1dgzRTgQO5AIIPAQ2BcSGFbB6BJzgUAQEBAQEBAWUcC4REBCMRRRIBIgImAgQwFRIEDogsDrFxkHkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEwR8hSKBdYoPK4IrBZdyAYVyiBWPCwKPFAEeAQFCgjKBNYhbfgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,423,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="255896355"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Mar 2016 18:44:07 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2VIi7T9031987 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 31 Mar 2016 18:44:07 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 13:44:06 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-005.cisco.com ([173.36.7.15]) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com ([173.36.7.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 13:44:06 -0500
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: YANG - Intended-Config & Applied-Config & Derived-State & Operational-state...grrrr... !!
Thread-Index: AQHRi31NmlAQiI8k5U+2ghmHbAtBnA==
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 18:44:06 +0000
Message-ID: <6A55F6E8-8A67-459D-BAB6-CC41F8D7BF30@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/0.0.0.151105
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.102.241]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <1A8E4D1397CBFA4A8038302B6F60E6B9@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/NN-BDRC6Wt9dHE7Olc5iKpFltgk>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: [mpls] YANG - Intended-Config & Applied-Config & Derived-State & Operational-state...grrrr... !!
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 18:44:10 -0000

While working on MPLS LDP yang model (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raza-mpls-ldp-mldp-yang), we noticed the possible confusion around structuring intended config, applied config and derived state *.

On one hand, one may have 'intended-config’ (RW) and ‘applied-config’ (RO) in the same construct (container), and ‘derived state’ (RO) in a separate construct (container). 

	This keeps config together, but doesn’t help operational state, which requires
	Both Applied-config and derived-state.

On the other hand hand, one may have ‘intended-config’ in one construct (container), and ‘applied-config’ and ‘derived state’ in a separate construct (container). 

	This simplifies figuring operational-state, but divides the config types.

There are pros & cons either way. It would be good to have some guidance/text around guiding one over another, so that other models can leverage. Otherwise, we are going to end up with yet one more discrepancy (among various protocols YANG models), & confusing if not inefficient modeling.

Perhaps, we ditch both of the above approaches, and settle on keeping all three of them in the same construct. It might simplify the organization a bit. Of course, that also has 2 options - have all the data types in intended-config, and then in applied-config and then in derived-state. Or have intended-config, applied-config and derived-state for each data type. Latter might be slightly better, given that not every data type will have all three.


Thoughts? 

-- 
Cheers,
Rajiv Asati
Distinguished Engineer, Cisco


* https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04>
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email