Re: [netconf] YANG encoding in CBOR

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Sat, 23 March 2019 10:10 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 0F10D130E6D; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 03:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 0BoL83C6vWdl; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 03:10:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de (atlas5.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53B1E1293B1; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 03:10:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE8866F4; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 11:10:05 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.217]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id Q_4hyp3vGCha; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 11:10:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "Jacobs University CA - G01" (verified OK)) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 11:10:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF04200A6; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 11:10:05 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10028) with ESMTP id YRAKQ_jvn_vC; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 11:10:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from exchange.jacobs-university.de (SXCHMB01.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "exchange.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (verified OK)) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06C30200A5; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 11:10:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from anna.localdomain (10.50.218.117) by sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.1591.10; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 11:10:04 +0100
Received: by anna.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 501) id D700A30077A954; Sat, 23 Mar 2019 11:10:03 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 11:10:03 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
CC: Michel Veillette <Michel.Veillette@trilliant.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190323101003.gp3zvsvqqwc26jip@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Michel Veillette <Michel.Veillette@trilliant.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
References: <6235c6683ff14848a661f8b8cec94280@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com> <BL0PR06MB5042823429DB7CDA0F33408B9A430@BL0PR06MB5042.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <588401AB-483E-40F5-95BB-20A066E56DAC@tzi.org> <15fbaf84b20343a1b83f40b571149a14@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com> <1ADF8201-ABB4-44FD-A515-F3F8E0DBF5FC@tzi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1ADF8201-ABB4-44FD-A515-F3F8E0DBF5FC@tzi.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
X-ClientProxiedBy: SXCHMB03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155) To sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/E5W0oFrzULocKCBodw9EacEnFHw>
Subject: Re: [netconf] YANG encoding in CBOR
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: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 10:10:11 -0000

I think we need to look at the whole picture and in which direction we
want to go. In the longer term, I would prefer a solution where the
values of a union are discriminated. The current XML encoding
behaviour of 'first match wins' is fragile (for example, if someone
adds an enum to a type, the interpretation of data can change).

Look at this:

typedef bar {
  type union {
    type enumeration { enum "1"; value 2; enum "2"; value 1; }
    type uint8;
  }
}

We have some encodings that send the string representations of the
values and some encodings that prefer to send numeric representations
where possible. In order to have a robust solution, encodings should
likely indicate to which type the value belongs.

/js

On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:03:32AM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Well, if that is a problem, we can go for a longer representation within unions (section 6.12).  Theoretically, we could do that only of there is more than one enum in the union type (so things stay efficient if there is only one), but that might pose difficulties with model evolution.
> 
> Going for a string representation repeats the feature of XML YANG (which was ported over to JSON YANG):
> 
> typedef foo {
>   type union {
>     type enumeration {
>       enum red { value 1; }
>       enum breen { value 2; }
>       enum glue { value 3; }
>     }
>     type enumeration {
>       enum tacks { value 1; }
>       enum nails { value 2; }
>       enum glue { value 3; }
>     }
>   }
> }
> 
> If you use “glue”, you don’t know which of the enumerations are being used.
> 
> Using SIDs, we can do better.
> 
> So what do we have to do to get the SID tool to allocate SIDs for enum values?
> 
> We could then define the CBOR tag for enums in unions to take the usual SID difference (delta relative to the environment, I’d think), not an integer value.
> 
> Several of us are at the hackathon and could make something happen today and tomorrow.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> 
> > On Mar 22, 2019, at 18:30, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; wrote:
> > 
> > I guess that the concern is that this introduces more variation in how data is interpreted between the different XML/JSON/CBOR encodings.
> > 
> > E.g. if someone switched from XML to CBOR, suddenly the configuration or state data may have a different meaning.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> > 
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>;
> >> Sent: 22 March 2019 16:08
> >> To: Michel Veillette <Michel.Veillette@trilliant.com>;
> >> Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>;; core@ietf.org;
> >> netconf@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [netconf] YANG encoding in CBOR
> >> 
> >> On Mar 22, 2019, at 16:45, Michel Veillette <Michel.Veillette@trilliant.com>;
> >> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> The only potential problem I aware is when multiple enumerations are part of
> >> the same union.
> >>> Value 4 from enumeration A will be encoded the same way as Value 4 from
> >> enumeration B.
> >> 
> >> … and that is not a problem for the XML version, because the string is being used
> >> instead of the value.  (But then if two enumerations share a string, you have the
> >> equivalent problem in the XML serialization.)
> >> 
> >> Anyway, I haven’t seen a piece of real-world YANG that actually has this
> >> problem, so I would be a bit reluctant to make CBOR-based implementations
> >> more complex (and less efficient) so solve this (non-?)problem.
> >> 
> >> Grüße, Carsten
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>


On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:03:32AM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Well, if that is a problem, we can go for a longer representation within unions (section 6.12).  Theoretically, we could do that only of there is more than one enum in the union type (so things stay efficient if there is only one), but that might pose difficulties with model evolution.
> 
> Going for a string representation repeats the feature of XML YANG (which was ported over to JSON YANG):
> 
> typedef foo {
>   type union {
>     type enumeration {
>       enum red { value 1; }
>       enum breen { value 2; }
>       enum glue { value 3; }
>     }
>     type enumeration {
>       enum tacks { value 1; }
>       enum nails { value 2; }
>       enum glue { value 3; }
>     }
>   }
> }
> 
> If you use “glue”, you don’t know which of the enumerations are being used.
> 
> Using SIDs, we can do better.
> 
> So what do we have to do to get the SID tool to allocate SIDs for enum values?
> 
> We could then define the CBOR tag for enums in unions to take the usual SID difference (delta relative to the environment, I’d think), not an integer value.
> 
> Several of us are at the hackathon and could make something happen today and tomorrow.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> 
> > On Mar 22, 2019, at 18:30, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; wrote:
> > 
> > I guess that the concern is that this introduces more variation in how data is interpreted between the different XML/JSON/CBOR encodings.
> > 
> > E.g. if someone switched from XML to CBOR, suddenly the configuration or state data may have a different meaning.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> > 
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>;
> >> Sent: 22 March 2019 16:08
> >> To: Michel Veillette <Michel.Veillette@trilliant.com>;
> >> Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>;; core@ietf.org;
> >> netconf@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [netconf] YANG encoding in CBOR
> >> 
> >> On Mar 22, 2019, at 16:45, Michel Veillette <Michel.Veillette@trilliant.com>;
> >> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> The only potential problem I aware is when multiple enumerations are part of
> >> the same union.
> >>> Value 4 from enumeration A will be encoded the same way as Value 4 from
> >> enumeration B.
> >> 
> >> … and that is not a problem for the XML version, because the string is being used
> >> instead of the value.  (But then if two enumerations share a string, you have the
> >> equivalent problem in the XML serialization.)
> >> 
> >> Anyway, I haven’t seen a piece of real-world YANG that actually has this
> >> problem, so I would be a bit reluctant to make CBOR-based implementations
> >> more complex (and less efficient) so solve this (non-?)problem.
> >> 
> >> Grüße, Carsten
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>