IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netconf] Should a NETCONF server implement YANG Library 1.1 if it does not support NETCONF NMDA?

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Thu, 01 July 2021 12:26 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21FBE3A0414 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 05:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 5YgUcUiPl0t3 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 05:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C003D3A0147 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 05:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id p24so8226898ljj.1 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 05:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HyY3CFS+xb4tBvGk2t4r2UHS6JXB3lnf5DMXtb4PLnM=; b=ukTYN5Xd6lw51vSeX2ivvFuNQ6adH7WNIokiIfMn2q6cs7VMC0TGEamt4c/nKWZSF4 rU77tzifLgtRNIWW3qe72Zo//0D/lZGKNRPvCneGwMTJT8fpSimECsIgSYUdRO+JvwhW P3W4gHU5rdrUGCWdPN7lgiefScp3DrDpDJAuGGBPfrmuAZ5rFCeMGohO+PRfWCeb2qtg derqeczLwsAZTCTW+jLODWe/M4+slkU880KD8zWsUeSvmWMpCpzYNiqLrFGaca8t+yGW UpCG7v63iE/0EwykApSFEQRiS+x74n/m0BHgMbW7xdumIJlYBDR5SCyjCe/UB7Yh9pfS HxtQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HyY3CFS+xb4tBvGk2t4r2UHS6JXB3lnf5DMXtb4PLnM=; b=tYRZP5pf1mMDTwyK0Hny/z0PKY9XP+ZHH16XXBzYWat+vyk0t+AoioNVsjwNopMRKm dmPaGicEQ0PJVeX9mpYjc4ooErAJIUIaE3SBw/5UGUjnzNOb61uAtld2JQV1DSTcjFLp Rd9Usorrl9FgRPN8AUh0bFsh43UJyW9/UKEccn3JkJiMAya7xeFjQAVayslSubhzR16E 75jPtOlPxJpRZ6mE+m9EOqVCBWfo42IcZ64QNWEYESU48seyibHdNkner1LEzbF40VH0 SVrwCxf3MagGEXFu0v3HXb3ysEdW/cYDYIDAaVrPwdi9VvdXx01ZEaxHcitYmkNLPyPr VHNA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5301PHo8DdYIdZ1niihrltCYgWqKlvNDP8l6IpC5MSg3z+7/mn+p StoooM6A/r4WiZ5UyilveYxVf9h+dp2L/8KgKYJ3KQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwU4XPByq4RxYu9WmbLnk2IkkOQdHUcUTsMlAK5D2QvjYF3qvOFFbxFHW+3MFXvCd8c2fP/r7+XC59nxkFeaHI=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:6a0f:: with SMTP id f15mr12377114ljc.91.1625142368707; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 05:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <d8bd1bec-834c-3247-8269-0f9d915dd36a@mg-soft.si> <ee2ced1d-2d74-093a-d377-73907e03c7fa@lightside-instruments.com>
In-Reply-To: <ee2ced1d-2d74-093a-d377-73907e03c7fa@lightside-instruments.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 05:25:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQomyGQxbg-svjZTcKPjc+BWodPaugSE8LFC_fXj-Uw6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vladimir Vassilev <vladimir@lightside-instruments.com>
Cc: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000098cfb305c60ef124"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/2Fxfp_A3lEepX-wFtV2mOpx7L38>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Should a NETCONF server implement YANG Library 1.1 if it does not support NETCONF NMDA?
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 12:26:24 -0000

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 1:36 AM Vladimir Vassilev <
vladimir@lightside-instruments.com> wrote:

>
> On 30/06/2021 10.33, Jernej Tuljak wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a relatively simple question, stated in the subject.
> >
> > I cannot find any concrete text that would advise against, prohibit or
> > encourage such a thing, but is ietf-yang-library@2019-01-04 intended
> > to be used in such a way; to be implemented in a non-NMDA NETCONF server?
> >
> > How should a NMDA enabled NETCONF client handle a situation where
> > :yang-library:1.1 capability is advertised by the NETCONF server, but
> > ietf-netconf-nmda module is not (assuming that the client is also
> > capable of acting as a legacy client)?
>
> IMO all NETCONF servers that implement :yang-library:1.0 implement NMDA
> where "all datastores have exactly the same schema". Those servers can
> trivially implement :yang-library:1.1. I am not aware of any formal
> requirement for such implementation to also implement ietf-netconf-nmda
> - e.g. <get-data>.
>

Correct.
If module A does not import or even mention module B,
then it safe to assume that there is no requirement to implement B
if A is supported.

It is trivial for the server to support the new YANG library, and at least
2 implementations
use the same approach even if NMDA is enabled.

It has never been trivial for a client to support NMDA, and that is why NMDA
is not being adopted (but the server-centric WG still thinks the jury is
out on NMDA).


>
> IMO client software using <get> and <get-config> should not need changes
> to support device servers upgraded to support :yang-library:1.1 with or
> without implementation of ietf-netconf-nmda (<get-data> etc.).
>
>
This is not just an opinion.
No words in RFC 6241 are altered because NMDA is implemented.
The <get> and <get-config> operations work exactly the same as before NMDA
existed.



> /Vladimir
>
>
>

Andy



> >
> > Jernej
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netconf mailing list
> > netconf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email