Re: [Netconf] Editorial change-2 for draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

I am not sure an example is needed but if we include one, we need one
which is correct. I think the namespaces are a bit messed up in Rohit's
example.

/js

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 08:36:47AM -0400, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
> Have the authors agreed on the final set of edits for this document? How about the example that Rohit mentioned in the original e-mail?
> 
> > On Jun 4, 2018, at 7:01 AM, Robert Wilton <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 04/06/2018 11:17, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >> Hi
> >> 
> >> Two comments inline.
> >> 
> >> Robert Wilton <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> Hi Rohit, authors,
> >>> 
> >>> I think that these are valid clarifications. I've reworded them
> >>> slightly, and moved the ancestor node text to the YANG module
> >>> instead.  I also think that the ancestor node text generically covers
> >>> the config filter clarification that you raised previously.
> >>> 
> >>> Hence, I propose the following diff to the NETCONF NMDA draft:
> >>> 
> >>> rwilton@rwilton-lnx:~/netconf-wg/netconf-nmda$ git diff --staged
> >>> diff --git a/ietf-netconf-nmda.yang b/ietf-netconf-nmda.yang
> >>> index f2929b9..72a674a 100644
> >>> --- a/ietf-netconf-nmda.yang
> >>> +++ b/ietf-netconf-nmda.yang
> >>> @@ -105,6 +105,9 @@ module ietf-netconf-nmda {
> >>>         by get-data must satisfy all filters, i.e., the filter
> >>>         criteria are logically ANDed.
> >>> 
> >>> +       Any ancestor nodes (including list keys) of nodes matched by
> >>> +       the filter are included in the response.
> >>> +
> >>>         The 'with-origin' parameter is only valid for an operational
> >>>         datastore. If 'with-origin' is used with an invalid datastore,
> >>>         then the server MUST return an <rpc-error> element with an
> >>> @@ -193,7 +196,7 @@ module ietf-netconf-nmda {
> >>>            description
> >>>              "Filter based on the 'origin' annotation.  A node matches
> >>>               the filter if its 'origin' annotation is not derived
> >>> -             from and not equal to all of the given filter values.";
> >>> +             from and not equal to any of the given filter values.";
> >>>          }
> >>>        }
> >>> 
> >>> diff --git a/nmda-netconf.org b/nmda-netconf.org
> >>> index e44e2c7..100e173 100644
> >>> --- a/nmda-netconf.org
> >>> +++ b/nmda-netconf.org
> >>> @@ -129,14 +129,17 @@ The "config-filter" parameter can be used to
> >>> retrieve only "config
> >>>  true" or "config false" nodes.
> >>> 
> >>>  The "origin-filter" parameter, which can be present multiple times,
> >>> -selects nodes matching any of the given values. The
> >>> -"negated-origin-filter", which can be present multiple times, selects
> >>> -nodes that do not match all given values. The "origin-filter"
> >>> -and "negated-origin-filter" parameters cannot be used together.
> >>> +selects nodes with origins matching, or derived from, any of the
> >>> given
> >> I would prefer:
> >> 
> >>  selects nodes with origins equal to, or derived from, any of the
> >>  given
> >> 
> >> 
> >> IMO, the term "match" in the original text means "equal to or
> >> derived-from", as explained in the data model.
> >> 
> >> The term "match" is problematic unless it is explained, b/c some
> >> people will think it means "equal to".  (Noone will think that
> >> "matches the regular expression" means "equal to the regular
> >> expression" though...)
> >> 
> >> Conclusion: always avoid the term "match".
> > OK.
> > 
> >> 
> >>> +values. The "negated-origin-filter", which can be present multiple
> >>> +times, selects nodes with origins that do not match, and are not
> >>> +derived from, any of the given values. The "origin-filter" and
> >>> +"negated-origin-filter" parameters cannot be used together.
> >>> 
> >>>  The "max-depth" parameter can be used by the client to limit the
> >>>  number of sub-tree levels that are returned in the reply.
> >>> 
> >>> Note to the authors, for the negative-origin-filter, I've also changed
> >>> "all" to "any" (which changes the semantics, but I think it was wrong
> >>> before).
> >> Agree that "any" is correct.
> >> 
> >> But does it really change the semantics?  "all" sounds quite odd, but
> >> isn't the end result the same?
> > I think that it is confusing, and probably depends on how you read it.
> > 
> > But, if you are OK with "any" then I think that reads better and is more intuitive.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> /martin
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> Similar updates will need to also be done to RESTCONF, but let's agree
> >>> the NETCONF text first.
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Rob
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On 01/06/2018 10:10, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
> >>>> Hi All,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Section 3.1.1
> >>>> 
> >>>> OLD:
> >>>> 
> >>>>    The "origin-filter" parameter, which can be present multiple times,
> >>>> 
> >>>>    selects nodes matching any of the given values.  The
> >>>> 
> >>>> "negated-origin-filter", which can be present multiple times, selects
> >>>> 
> >>>>    nodes that do not match all given values.
> >>>> 
> >>>> NEW:
> >>>> 
> >>>> The "origin-filter" parameter, which can be present multiple times,
> >>>> 
> >>>>    selects nodes which are derived from or matching any of the given
> >>>> values.  The
> >>>> 
> >>>> "negated-origin-filter", which can be present multiple times, selects
> >>>> 
> >>>>    nodes which are not derived from and do not match all given values.
> >>>> 
> >>>> When a data-node matching the filter is selected, the configuration
> >>>> ancestors
> >>>> 
> >>>> (if any) and list key leafs (if any), even if they do not match the
> >>>> filter, are also returned.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Consider two origins such as “learned” and “derived-from-learned”.
> >>>> 
> >>>> “derived-from-learned” is derived from learned origin.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Using the origin filters it is not possible to get nodes belonging to
> >>>> “learned”
> >>>> 
> >>>> only as the nodes of derived origin are automatically selected.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Notes:
> >>>> 
> >>>> The text in 3.1.1 did not include the “derived-from” logic for
> >>>> selection , while in the data-model definition it was present.
> >>>> 
> >>>>  We can also add clarification about the ancestor and key being
> >>>> output, even if though they do match the filter, since the leaf
> >>>> 
> >>>> matches the filter.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Example : We can use the RFC 8342 Appendix C.2 BGP Example
> >>>> 
> >>>>    <rpc message-id="101"
> >>>> 
> >>>> xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
> >>>> 
> >>>>      <get-data xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-nmda"
> >>>> 
> >>>> xmlns:ds="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-datastores">
> >>>> 
> >>>> <datastore>ds:running</datastore>
> >>>> 
> >>>> <subtree-filter>
> >>>> 
> >>>>          <bgp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-nmda"/>
> >>>> 
> >>>>       </subtree-filter>
> >>>> 
> >>>> <negated-origin-filter>intended</negated-origin-filter>
> >>>> 
> >>>> <with-origin>true</with-origin>
> >>>> 
> >>>>      </get-data>
> >>>> 
> >>>> </rpc>
> >>>> 
> >>>>    <rpc-reply message-id="101"
> >>>> 
> >>>> xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
> >>>> 
> >>>>      <data xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-nmda">
> >>>> 
> >>>>       <bgp xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin"
> >>>> 
> >>>> or:origin="or:intended">
> >>>> 
> >>>>        <peer>
> >>>> 
> >>>> <name>2001:db8::2:3</name>
> >>>> 
> >>>>          <local-as or:origin="or:default">64501</local-as>
> >>>> 
> >>>>          <peer-as or:origin="or:default">64502</peer-as>
> >>>> 
> >>>>          <local-port or:origin="or:system">60794</local-port>
> >>>> 
> >>>>          <remote-port or:origin="or:default">179</remote-port>
> >>>> 
> >>>> <state>established</state>
> >>>> 
> >>>>        </peer>
> >>>> 
> >>>>       </bgp>
> >>>> 
> >>>>      </data>
> >>>> 
> >>>>    </rpc-reply>
> >>>> 
> >>>> With Regards,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Rohit R Ranade
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Netconf mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> [e-mail]
> 

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>