Re: [Netconf] [NETCONF] monitoring data type definitions; proposed resolution to open item from IETF72

["Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Juergen for your follow up.

I have responded to Mark (privately) that we actually had a gentlemens agreement at 
the last IETF that he would try to get some interested folk in this space together
to analyze, study the topic and alternatives and that that small group would then
document one or more possile solutions and explain the pros/cons of each.

I hope that that effort will still take place (albeit somewhat later that we wanted)

I also urge those who want to do that work (analyze, document the alternatives,
make some well-documented proposals) to get in tocuh with Mark.
You can copy the WG list (or just the WG chairs) if you want.

Bert
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Juergen Schoenwaelder 
  To: Mark Scott 
  Cc: [e-mail] 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 4:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [Netconf] [NETCONF] monitoring data type definitions;proposed resolution to open item from IETF72


  On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:53:32PM -0400, Mark Scott wrote:
    
  > An open item discussed at IETF 72 is the definition of data types in the
  > monitoring draft.  Specifically whether or not data types required in
  > the model should be explicitly defined in this draft or whether they
  > should reference other standardized XSD definitions (where they exist).
  >  
  > In particular draft-ietf-netconf-monitoring-02 currently contains an
  > explicit definition for an IP address data type.  This can be found in
  > sec 5.2 of the draft.  I have also included it below for reference.
  >  
  > Rationale at the time of authoring v02 was to explicitly define this
  > since no other standardized XSD was available.  Although I am aware of
  > similiar work in-progress to define standardized XSD data types I am
  > still now aware of one suitable for this draft at this time.

  Do you have a list of work in progress documents where similar XSD
  definitions are provided?

  > The item which looked most promising (which was discussed in Dublin) was
  > alignment to the definitions in
  > draft-ietf-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-03 (sec 5.4).  That draft focuses
  > on representing existing SMI datatypes in XSD.  This in insufficient for
  > the needs of the monitoring draft where we require an enhanced
  > definition.  In particular one with the ability to handle both IPv4 and
  > IPv6 addresses.
  >  
  > So I would like to seek concencus from the group that the current
  > explicit definition in draft-ietf-netconf-monitoring-02 is sufficient
  > for our NETCONF monitoring needs and that we will leave the explicit
  > definition in the draft in the next update (-03).

  Some questions:

  a) What is going to be the final scope of this? Are these definitions
     going to be NETCONF monitoring specific only or are there
     expectations that these definitions are used in the wider context
     of the IETF? (The suggested namespace might imply a much wider
     context.)

  b) I see differences in the patterns compared to what we have in
     draft-ietf-netmod-yang-types-00.txt (and the corresponding XSD in
     the appendix). Perhaps this should be synchronized.

  c) In the context of the YANG work, we recently discussed the issue of
     types allowing multiple representations for a single value from the
     value space. This leads to the question of normalization. For
     example, IPv6 addresses can be represented in different ways, e.g.,
     ::1 and 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 denote the same value. If we assume that a
     NETCONF implementation only maintains the value and not its
     representation, is there a normalized representation you can expect
     to be returned by the NETCONF server? Since you are dealing with
     IPv6 addresses, you might have to deal with the same issue (and not
     surprisingly, I like the NETCONF monitoring document to be
     consistent with the YANG types document about this issue).

  /js

  -- 
  Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
  Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
  Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
  _______________________________________________
  Netconf mailing list
  [e-mail]
  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf