Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question: empty mandatory choice? (was RE: YangPush now)

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

Please see inline ...

On 26/07/2018 20:22, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:
>
> Hi YANG doctors,
>
> We are trying to close on some YANG push drafts.  There is one YANG 
> related question I would like to bounce off of you before making a 
> suggested change.
>
> In the thread:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg15169.html
>
> is the following request:
>
> > From: Kent Watsen, July 26, 2018 1:48 PM
>
> >
>
> > <chair hat on>
>
> > ...
>
> >
>
> > Assuming no objections, to close the issues discussed in Montreal, 
> we're waiting
>
> > for the following updates:
>
> >
>
> >   ...
>
> >   sub-notif: modify config model to mandate a transport
>
> What I believe Kent is asking for is that the 
> ietf-subscribed-notifications.yang model should be enhanced to mandate 
> that transport specific call home parameters are augmented under the 
> container “receivers”.  He wants to do this by incorporating a 
> mandatory choice, with no cases being identified.  Cases would be 
> added via augmentations in subsequent drafts.
>
> Specifically, Kent's proposal as per
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg15148.html
>
> is "to make the augmentation of a "notif" model mandatory (see the '+' 
> lines below), to ensure that there is always something more than just 
> a name being configured per receiver.
>
> container receivers {
>
> list receiver {
>
> key "name";
>
> min-elements 1;
>
> leaf name {
>
> type string;
>
> }
>
> +      choice transport {
>
> +        mandatory true;
>
> +        description
>
> +          "Defines the transport-specific configuration data
>
> +           for the selected transport.";
>
> +      } "
>
> At this point there is an open question from Andy on this approach.
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg15149.html
>
> Andy’s says:
>
> “The notion of an empty mandatory choice really stretches the 
> definition of YANG Conformance. This says you cannot possible 
> implement the SN module without some other module augmenting it. Yet 
> there is no way in YANG (besides import) to say the module bar needs 
> to be present if module foo is present.”
>

I can definitely get Andy's point here.  I.e. that using mandatory as a 
conformance tool doesn't seem like a great choice.

However, I think that another angle is that the configuration for a 
receiver a transport must always be specified.  This seems like a 
reasonable constraint, so the mandatory also seems reasonable 
(regardless that it is specified as an empty choice).

> My first question to you is would you object to mandatory choice 
> statements without corresponding case statements?  If you *do* have an 
> issue with an empty mandatory choice, we should likely stay with the 
> current solution.
>
On balance, no I don't object.


> If you see no issue with an empty mandatory choice, I have a second 
> question for you.    For all receivers in a subscription, the selected 
> transport choice case in Kent’s suggestion above MUST match to the 
> value of the “transport” leaf which is one level higher in the tree.  
> I.e.:
>
>     +--rw subscriptions
>
>        +--rw subscription* [identifier]
>
> +--rw transport                                  transport {configured}?
>
>           +--rw receivers
>
>              +--rw receiver* [name]
>
>    +--rw (transport)
>
>       +--rw :(NETCONF)
>
>         |  +--rw (NETCONF specific call home parameters)
>
>       +--rw :(HTTP2)
>
>             +--rw (HTTP2 specific parameters)
>
> (Note on the tree above, I inserted the NETCONF and HTTP2 cases of 
> transport for illustration purposes for the question below.  These two 
> cases would actually be incorporated via separate augmentations to the 
> ietf-subscribed-notifications.yang model.)
>
> Considering above, It seems difficult to enforce that the transport 
> cases selected under all receivers for a single subscription MUST be 
> identical, and also MUST match to the value of the “transport” leaf 
> under the subscription.
>
As per my other email, I think that we should allow multiple transports, 
so the transport leaf is not required.

> Would the YANG doctors have any issue with the structure Kent suggests 
> above?  If no, would the YANG doctors then mandate that integrity 
> checks per performed across the receiver case instances under a 
> subscription?   And if mandated, how might XPATH be encoded 
> considering transport cases are only added via augmentation?
>
Personally, I wouldn't mandate an xpath constraint.  There are many real 
life constraints that are not encoded in YANG models today.

If it did need to be enforced then I think that it would be an xpath 
expression on each transport container.  Perhaps something along the 
lines of "the count of 'receivers' under the subscription must equal the 
count of '<transport-specific-container or leaf>".

Thanks,
Rob


> Thanks,
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yang-doctors mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors