Re: [Netconf] mbj's WGLC review of yang-push-17

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Mon, 24 September 2018 18:44 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 7CEC7130EF7 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 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_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] 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 Mc0wJuapSlpj for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (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 70FE2130E8B for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:44:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id y71-v6so2787765lje.9 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:44:47 -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=qorlpmX0cWQClTyvZqOT+7eHu42ojNcYCRZa/r1J9r0=; b=ujO2rLavofsKrNLUF08Ca7GN7fPP6cn3wLkiAKm7iJcYhglMs+eNrt9r78UJt7ubu7 xI3PQtEFHOZaJv6YoNF3wtXr58Gg82b7c5ohXZhtkGdruxRjSSIxX8TgPj6iIOucEh5E FGV2Cdk2fK6x+FVN8wGATMt+2peTHvnhRCtTK64u3QqMT3zyrvZvb7dr4Gwp0zFR64QK rwRVAaSRYlJPv366k5hqfo1nRMCOx6glLoDmON828TlRrZnIQWpnWjVbcSUrwAFB/vMD AMVEskDnM4JLSvvo+V4q8zmCr4KRwzM2pQD1yJl0y4t75XhJolnTKaskpF/PqGdvkC5a XDmA==
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=qorlpmX0cWQClTyvZqOT+7eHu42ojNcYCRZa/r1J9r0=; b=PfLmtkJznVQzi2JWwObqS8oDuHcjYWYF7gXYimtxVue1vnfDbItr/iKqjnFS+5Fq5J l1h4jyGkNlcd2aMy/KWjgEF2Y/FmikN5uliEP0CLJr4nn+NqsC1uECc5WkZy/+bcfWYq l8B7xebYTtWL94kuOBDdiZN/lqmFX7swu6P18RrQGGp9e9Uugb4m1wN43HASLfB2qatr cOjsB5LY45doZMlaapCJLufgql/8e+pcUM5we5ydWpBLGNTQ/B3fnQvr22wr8jmDxMqu gSdzHLoExHNdKrpk9W/YMfwE/mwWrY+qkOJxG5uW9aC9o80u6Alc6eI7OPuHiLpT4V5J ZglA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohlEzGgHgtv1NNCHTAI0RVO6Pcg0POfZizaGHDfLPRlweJJ/grn FjTX4e+k+G2Dg2DIMJhpaacpHZF9K3ODDZSktJuqqfg5
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60ALt87A1dFjzraO/MX6M/t/I0T8qEhBWtlWZy6uibFF8HLYp0137QMB2GjQ99c9VsoNQNofirFjX2K957k9C8=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:4401:: with SMTP id r1-v6mr89892lja.21.1537814685325; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3B841FC9-63F4-41DD-BCE2-AA543FDADA5C@juniper.net> <20180920.094520.798604819426315275.mbj@tail-f.com> <644DA50AFA8C314EA9BDDAC83BD38A2E0EB691A5@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20180924.093612.1791958587714330227.mbj@tail-f.com> <A1DF23A4-3D00-43D7-B121-D9F567B2A43F@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <A1DF23A4-3D00-43D7-B121-D9F567B2A43F@juniper.net>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:44:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHTuHw026f-C=6YH2JyZS1CnrDiKzb_tWprxnhn-1Pq3mw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
Cc: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000cb1e20576a26254"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/KzlSBTc8XwDv7fRmVo-Qx6wQp6o>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] mbj's WGLC review of yang-push-17
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing 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: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 18:44:51 -0000

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:16 AM Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:

>
>
> >Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com> wrote:
> >> I am about to post -19 but I do not like the suggested change to go
> >> from timeticks to seconds.
> >>
> >> Seconds is a fairly coarse unit.  I would not be surprised to see
> >> requirements for finer granularity in the future, even more so in
> >> virtualization and controller scenarios in which we start to see YANG
> >> being used.  There are applications that use single second periods
> >> today so I think it is entirely conceivable to see need for subsecond
> >> support down the line.  To allow periods only in units of seconds
> >> would seem to unnecessarily hobble ourselves.  Keeping things to
> >> timeticks is more futureproof IMHO.
> >
> > Ok.
>
> I agree that seconds is too course. Hundredths of a second is maybe too
> fine, but I won't complain.  That said, I think that it might be an
> uncommon scenario and that having hundredths of a second will likely
> result in very large numbers.
>
>
IMO the current definition is sufficient and further delays in this work
are not justified.

Andy


> FWIW, yang:timeticks doesn't seem as intuitive as "units" - for example:
>
>           leaf period {
> -           type yang:timeticks;
> +           type uint16;
> +           units "Hundredths of a second";
>             mandatory true;
>             description
>               "Duration of time which should occur between periodic
>                push updates.";
>           }
>
> At least I know what this means right away.  I was hoping to find an
> example
> in -19 illustrating its use, but it's none is present.
>
> BTW, I note that RFC 6991 says:
>
>          When a schema
>          node is defined that uses this type, the description of
>          the schema node identifies both of the reference epochs.
>
> Which I don't see in -19.
>
> Would it make sense to use a 2-tuple?  Something like:
>
>           leaf period {
>             type uint16;
>             mandatory true;
>             description
>               "Duration of time which should occur between periodic
>                push updates.";
>           }
>           leaf period-units {
>             type enumeration {
>               enum hundredths;
>               enum tenths;
>               enum seconds;
>               enum minutes;
>               enum hours;
>             }
>             mandatory true;
>           }
>
>
>
> Kent // contributor
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>