IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf review

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Wed, 16 May 2018 07:49 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 CDB5D12D77C for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2018 00:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 P--uZvScQ18j for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2018 00:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ED421200A0 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2018 00:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 99253D3BA0F66 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2018 08:48:56 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Wed, 16 May 2018 08:48:57 +0100
Received: from NKGEML513-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.44]) by nkgeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Wed, 16 May 2018 15:48:53 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf review
Thread-Index: AQHT7CftaVM3PFTEJkaW3cFe+kowyqQwPviAgAG5DfA=
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 07:48:53 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AE1F2D7@nkgeml513-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <69877EC3-DE3E-4428-A2A2-56A2AC29CDCD@gmail.com> <f3265966-98e4-3698-9f9a-8318c20bb331@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <f3265966-98e4-3698-9f9a-8318c20bb331@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.33.244]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/RPJTMlzUMbFbreirS9FTP8ZpV40>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf review
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 16 May 2018 07:49:04 -0000

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Robert Wilton
发送时间: 2018年5月15日 21:15
收件人: Mahesh Jethanandani; Netconf
主题: Re: [Netconf] draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf review

Hi Mahesh,

On 15/05/2018 09:36, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
> A quick review of the draft has revealed the following issue and question.
>
> 1. A run of pyang on the model reveals the following:
>
>> pyang --ietf ietf-netconf-nmda@2018-04-20.yang
> ietf-netconf-nmda@2018-04-20.yang:205: warning: RFC 6087: 4.10,4.12: 
> statement "enum" should have a "description” substatement
>
> 2. This is a follow-up to the discussion on the mailing list. Reading through this draft, RFC7950, RFC6020, and rfc7895bis, it is not clear if a NETCONF server that wants to support both YANG 1.0 and YANG 1.1, needs to do from a schema advertisement perspective. Does it advertise the schemas as part of <hello> and as part of yang-library:1.1? Does it advertise both YANG 1.0 and 1.1 models in both the modes?
It is the specific modules that are being supported that are YANG 1.0/YANG 1.1 rather than the NETCONF server generically.

So, I think that this is really a variant of the broader question: Can a device implement multiple revisions of a YANG module?  This seems like a question that may be appropriate to be considered by the YANG versioning DT.

[Qin]: Good point, suppose we have two revisions of a YANG module, one revision is not back-compatible to another, would it be great for device to implement both revisions, but we may also require some fall back mechanism or update mechanism to inform the client some revision of the module is not supported.

But my recollection of the current RFCs (and YANG library bis draft) is that a standards compliant server only advertises a single revision of a module, and hence supporting multiple revisions is beyond the scope of the current standards documents.

Thanks,
Rob


>
>
> Mahesh Jethanandani // as shepherd
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status