IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netconf] Should Partial Lock be deprecated?

"Per Andersson (perander)" <perander@cisco.com> Mon, 07 June 2021 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <perander@cisco.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 7EEE03A15A6 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 06:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.596
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=R+8E8Qa7; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=u2bPYXgo
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 7qXBccTvZWPH for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 06:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9F6F3A15A3 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 06:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2306; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1623071674; x=1624281274; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=QpvNybpOwP+lI82DoouVa3orEdyyXqwzLgMqHiuvufs=; b=R+8E8Qa7JQzd3p6a72n2DEm39naYgWItKmOHE9I0R0OC/wcFjPE28TM+ QzoFO+TOktgLVGR4M2fWLXG5sAscfNqH0Wjh3L7a2hBn7qFeSBMYUtQEw mz79S965g+i7CZhuQMCnrVX1Xo3/+E5Z+qEc/Q025RGDSyR4YTAz/Q2bz E=;
X-IPAS-Result: A0BRAABMG75gl4sNJK1aHQEBAQEJARIBBQUBQIFFBgELAYFSUX5aNzELiAUDhTmIcwOaFoEugSUDVAsBAQENAQE3CAIEAQGBGIM4AoF/AiU2Bw4CBAEBAQEDAgMBAQEBBQEBBQEBAQIBBgQUAQEBAQEBAQFohWgNhkQBAQEEEi4BATcBDwIBCBEEAQEvMh0IAgQBDQUIGoJPAYJVAy8BAwuaWQGBOgKKH3iBNIEBggcBAQYEBIE4Ag5BgzcYgjEDBoE6AYJ6hnWDeiccgUlEgViCYD6CYgEBAgGBNBEYAoNLgi6CRG5RAiItBSduXrwaCoMcig+UABKlZJVSjBeSd4UiAgICAgQFAg4BAQaBWwQugUUPB3AVgyRQFwIOjh8Zg1eFFIVKczgCBgoBAQMJfIddgTYBgRABAQ
IronPort-PHdr: A9a23:9NNklxZFVJQG/d29cJUwlnb/LTAzhN3EVzX9orIhjLFPe+Ko+JGxd EDc5PA4iljPUM2b7v9fkOPZvujmXnBI+peOtn0OMfkuHx8IgMkbhUosVciCD0CoKvnpbiV8F 8NHBxdp+nihOh1TH8DzL1TZvny162sUHRPyfQp4L+j4AMjclcOyguuz4JbUJQ5PgWnVXA==
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:T4z3HqqreSBsFLTDarG2qggaV5v+L9V00zEX/kB9WHVpm5Oj9v xGzc506farslkssSkb6K+90KnpewK6yXcH2/huAV7EZnimhILIFvAt0WKG+V3d8kLFh5VgPM tbAs1D4ZjLfCRHZKXBkUmF+rQbsaO6GcmT7I+0pRoAPGIaCZ2IrT0JdzpzeXcGIjWucKBJbK Z0kfA33gZIF05nCviTNz0gZazuttfLnJXpbVotHBg88jSDijuu9frTDwWY9g12aUIN/Z4StU z+1yDp7KSqtP+2jjXG0XXI0phQkNz9jvNeGc23jNQPIDmEsHfrWG0hYczGgNkGmpDp1L8Yqq iLn/7mBbUr15rlRBDwnfIq4Xi57N9h0Q649bbSuwqTnSWwfkNLNyMGv/MCTvMcgHBQ4O2VF8 lwrj+kXtNsfGD9tTW46N7SWx5wkE2o5XIkjO4IlnRaFZATcblLsOUkjQ5o+bo7bWnHAbocYa NT5QDnlYBrmFihHjzkV6lUsZSRt1EIb1i7q2Q5y7ioOglt7TlEJhEjtbkid187heUAord/lp b5Dpg=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.83,255,1616457600"; d="scan'208";a="723342254"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 07 Jun 2021 13:14:33 +0000
Received: from mail.cisco.com (xbe-rcd-005.cisco.com [173.37.102.20]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 157DEWgt017930 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 7 Jun 2021 13:14:32 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xbe-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.2.792.15; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 08:14:32 -0500
Received: from xfe-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.121) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.18; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:14:31 -0400
Received: from NAM12-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xfe-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.121) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.792.15 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 08:14:31 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=kzvNxOn6k6gtvbo5STLMnxRZQWmNR0NLpRQ+jf/OnN7di553HiegyPooZTp7n142hrDK12zBaJvpBDS1gg1R9r9n2LtuGvAuTMY6P2rKAUIJY7kVoAZVOUsB47U+MiSMJ3p39yJyJ7TIDpYHJQkYJzavVTwPt1dIwHy3tO+7dpDhySz/W54ruZRUbhPpnXGSjwFkgoSfDlbKK09JE/03U+jgiYVgd4cDObhML3thtCrZ3Pmq3v0QgJ957q5cRu7SLd/ZmT3feA5r7e82fLEW9bH691EvknqOgKC9jOBCDK6N/VMZjkTenZUnNZL4tDRcDA0AT9XFioBUS8voZfu6UQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=gzsKsVqt+0GxbyhzM2ch5nXytPAxOvUYRFmlRob01us=; b=HFFXrmApghvF7O2VWePoYSI8InuPJYcxit7EtT4rapMSjj4PF1qctlqnwEg5gSNSZY24A2S2QQjQpUYShpN7Cwu62Vr/hzb7QnUauDOcwzNefqNPK8vHB/4PcgPfvQrloNL9A9WVxfgpICcrsEdsKJ4dUBJ7C7fv8jL+qpAlZdLWQ9myINP6l3vIQzJnSSzZqH+Fz8RqdXp4NkIMHoezqEvRFi+eqPDy7L0DILBVzM7qpxkLhNvprHjcvDaGx+PQEAWN7/lIAfVf1acNc8ZZH/PiZQYvBXa1WmC2x7bdUGoTW0dMT9bbN0NAHvX0XqRvNhfTP+oFxvA0Xn2q5kgSIw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=gzsKsVqt+0GxbyhzM2ch5nXytPAxOvUYRFmlRob01us=; b=u2bPYXgowgMCz1eIfA/Qash+G8GZ5rK599s8cX0KS3BM5lS0Rn39TUMP1zQADWCzJCM5oODuwzu7+i/gIm9ZDVBJraylRoBgPZ+B/4dfAY2Rov0inFGerzl+f06OWo6HNdpU4hcueAattVROb9jYZ/OJlPrTrfWFQGlJUJ9o4o8=
Received: from MWHPR11MB2032.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:300:2b::13) by MWHPR1101MB2237.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:301:57::17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4195.24; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 13:14:29 +0000
Received: from MWHPR11MB2032.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::852d:44c4:b446:2dad]) by MWHPR11MB2032.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::852d:44c4:b446:2dad%8]) with mapi id 15.20.4195.030; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 13:14:29 +0000
From: "Per Andersson (perander)" <perander@cisco.com>
To: "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com>, Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] Should Partial Lock be deprecated?
Thread-Index: AQHXVj5bOxDSlN8THUKWsMOJnaQA56r/HbGAgAUABYCABG8B6w==
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 13:14:29 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR11MB2032A14BF0F081EAA3965408DB389@MWHPR11MB2032.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CABCOCHS+fC1BE3kGopFhbxppo_5+uMbB6pi3NavxWzmZK+pWUg@mail.gmail.com> <01000179c7a2ab19-82741952-87dd-4247-8f2f-01d3162863b6-000000@email.amazonses.com>, <DM6PR08MB508413CA41FACA497338B52B9B3B9@DM6PR08MB5084.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR08MB508413CA41FACA497338B52B9B3B9@DM6PR08MB5084.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: nokia.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;nokia.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [79.136.42.44]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 116156ca-8f55-4af2-298e-08d929b62ee7
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR1101MB2237:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR1101MB2237F8AFC1A833FB4501FF4CDB389@MWHPR1101MB2237.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8882;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:MWHPR11MB2032.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(366004)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(396003)(136003)(91956017)(66446008)(64756008)(66476007)(66556008)(76116006)(8936002)(66946007)(83380400001)(86362001)(71200400001)(4326008)(33656002)(8676002)(26005)(186003)(122000001)(55016002)(53546011)(6506007)(2906002)(9686003)(966005)(38100700002)(52536014)(110136005)(316002)(296002)(478600001)(7696005)(5660300002)(55236004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: wO1+kTSncVkQE47RU6/xWbwtj3aeUQvfOGvpPJoNxIIPG0+lnCgJu3iiXUaK97Rmhb/tq5hGgaPR86onu3cS/YG7NIWbeVkCwPaymxWqyPvOVJqniSxwszz0hvsmxChUEnKZoPYkDCW/xXqqsvY5cb7WhTfUSiEX93MToVk1b0Ca9/ao2rcE/qz20ScTnWPjSRYT/lsQboS3owMMXb8VpaI0OpEfKi04Ph5uNBX7TRyNHXNTPy6pSwCzeaAUjwMh/FHDJr2tjMdFaY+b63SlBPkXIwPYlsGeh8fJdcToUZjI9NMPtuoxlp/k0oDqX1SGtM0PqVn2IVRRHe36xuZFyTC8ACu9R6A7Uig4jHfd4PklMWBUQlOL3ED1RXlPUfs7zqGL/FulZ8vfWO5Hj/mLlAPhh5QGnq5WYlkO3j/w7wa1N86poppnoLwf7FaGJx6Xquj6xpkQUaTXGH9YT1SqYjcYMK8FyDseHPQfpiPyyqNAR46Oclu40KmGzs+J0/ehztDH+iv3hgauxzdvIAALyZzY04nx0JiC2A8STKLKvqYwQP0FowPI+BjZIVOZmVKt5MBeb45LCOHAdjbMdqFD6J6WMSinenLeFV4mk/EIiruQJ/ldKdag7bAqLuoxYSDUwhwF23090dNuAw5jepzl4DDIL1d3YwA3BFe4qQSJGEYbGDw8zW0jnQfSxBpR9Gcdov2A2Lh6wtfZ5CmqRfDIMDLv7v/FVhshsRabo3O8Zq6rp77iEj/W9FQTwidKddlRCx4EWGiG2eb7m6/k3L967SF2zFLKPe67KfPs8dGtSsd6zy+Ld5jOBiLajCK8NwXdwXXd7YrmD+BgjCc2e9aIBqCwrdhag1Ib3F3+tWKzLgY0RxGKaRoizkw/FH6A92iPJu6z497FMdff1BPz0LavsiFn6hsiqhGVUkTiFLKNAROnrHwxLT5B5Ouk62KTTdaQE0Otb9Xd4uSwDCIT+pEBdhIHdrgGgKSPxtdr80c4D89JzCwYo6roTcX8WJTAIn4m0CsuytnVwWu6HrakfG9xegBvkDjq33EoAg6onVZIAe6Ddwv04Oeq9Vww4C1i1H/ZqXacozsFSZgnj9dorpJMUqmA1eZ5HAnj+2yKaTGKPP64Bsl5TX0yuD9eqSGKJv+igq5WpKhVCYn0m/QxGoVb+NvBWRoFAzgJ04LTopxMhdTPiuLexJW9N7accVPzHBLG+J3y/uJPGAbqr4lt9Re8XEaqxcpeaaPOFt3qQF6XhXu5oirsH3JwP+HEtaTah914VHQc7uAt2Nk6IjaSEJZ41MzOynLAkTDLKWGqX6uZPXU=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MWHPR11MB2032.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 116156ca-8f55-4af2-298e-08d929b62ee7
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 Jun 2021 13:14:29.5334 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 6qnWvpKLRn2jeIbO7qBjUUjKHO2cA8O6zsip3OpVRMJKZFf77Fqh7fDxMAtvOl97GvgP2aa8ou3FaQunChMBLQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR1101MB2237
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.20, xbe-rcd-005.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/R3FUfDzdt8291G9tMflI59KYvNM>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Should Partial Lock be deprecated?
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: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 13:14:40 -0000

Hi!

Both NSO (orchestrator) and ConfD implement partial-lock. I do not know
from the top of my head if/how it is used though. Use cases for both NSO
and ConfD involve simultaneous access from multiple users and/or systems.

However, what would the alternative be if partial-lock is deprecated?
Only using global lock, an RFC 5717 bis, or something else?

Porting RESTCONF's If-Match to NETCONF, as Kent suggests, looks
interesting. Have you seen Jan's draft for transaction-id [0], I believe this
would be such a mechanism.


[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lindblad-netconf-transaction-id-00


--
Per

________________________________________
From: netconf <netconf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <jason.sterne@nokia.com>
Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 19:14
To: Kent Watsen; Andy Bierman
Cc: netconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netconf] Should Partial Lock be deprecated?

Hi guys,

I've always been a bit doubtful about this RFC as well (complexity and issues vs benefits and likely use cases).

Jason

From: netconf <netconf-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 8:53 AM
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Cc: netconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netconf] Should Partial Lock be deprecated?

Hi Andy,

I bet some do not remember we have this RFC
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5717
(So old there is a normative XSD and non-normative YANG module).

I have not seen this RFC used in several years.
Is anyone using it?
Should it be deprecated?
Just curious.

As a contributor, I have never been a fan of this RFC.  Significant complexity for a weak use case.


Regarding the use case, my limited perspective is that rarely does more than one client access a server at a time (esp. when an NMS/orchestrator is in play) and, when it does occur, the access is typically for a brief amount of time, such that having a second client wait doesn’t seem a big deal.

Applications vary, of course, with some (multi-tenant app, socials, etc.) being all about simultaneous access.  To the extent these apps desire YANG-driven interfaces, I much prefer RESTCONF’s If-Match mechanism and would recommend porting it to NETCONF.


Andy

K.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email