Re: [netconf] Adoption call for draft-kwatsen-netconf-http-client-server-04

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Kent,

From: Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
Sent: 14 November 2019 13:09
To: Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption call for draft-kwatsen-netconf-http-client-server-04

Hi Martin,

Personally I don't care; just pointing out a discussion that may be
relevant.

Ack.  Let's focus on the module names, the draft name will fall out from that discussion.



I think it is the name "ietf-http-server" that seems to indicate that
this a module that can be used to configure any HTTP server.  (See
below!)

It's more like a possible basis to configure any HTTP server, which to me still seems like the right thing to do, until someone can provide a concrete technical reason why it cannot be so.
[RW]
Do we require consensus from the httpbis WG if we want to use ietf-http-server.yang?  If we do, then how long will that take?  We really want to get these drafts and YANG modules finished (even if they are not perfect).



I wonder if the names should be "ietf-http-server-groupings" instead?

Hmmm, this is an interesting idea...


(and same for tcp / ssh / tls, but not netconf / restconf).

I see why you might say this, but the netconf/restconf drafts also define groupings, which are (IMO) more important than the containers, which we added under questionable conditions (i.e., the "client" containers make almost no sense, and the "server" containers have limited use, especially without the ability to augment/refine things when "implemented").


We
already have some "-types" modules.  Or even "ietf-http-server-types",
if by "type" we mean "typedef and/or grouping".

...and identities and features (and maybe something else I'm not thinking about just now).
[RW]
Probably also extensions.

It is worth noting that iana-if-type.yang defines identities.  Other "-types" YANG modules define some groupings.

So, perhaps by type it really means a YANG module that does not define any data-nodes (outside groupings), RPC, notifications, or actions.

This could also be a way to make the name less problematic.  It makes
it more obvious that these modules provide building blocks, rather
than a complete solution.

I truly appreciate the intention behind this idea and love the idea of sticking with an undiluted "http", but I question if putting "grouping" into the module name is ideal, perhaps "base" or "basis" would be better?   Even for the NC/RC modules, they are merely a base/basis for higher-level business logic.  [note: I also thought about "params", but the (IMO useless) containers in the NC/RC modules don't lend themselves well to being called "params"]

To help visualize these options:

               ietf-http-server-base
               ietf-http-server-basis
               ietf-http-server-params

               ietf-restconf-server-base
               ietf-restconf-server-basis
               ietf-restconf-server-params

To be clear, I'm not yet agreeing to or promoting this approach yet, though it seems promising.
[RW]
I quite like the idea of "ietf-http-server-types.yang" ...

Thanks,
Rob




Kent // contributor