Re: [Netconf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06.txt> (YANG Library) to Proposed Standard

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Mon, 02 July 2018 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@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 21E851310FA; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 08:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, 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
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 YuTyIjTuDKdi; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 08:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B6931310FF; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 08:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4475; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1530544226; x=1531753826; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Zk/T1NOagunkCX+/6ratv2/D1iMFa+kNxvAHemUpm3g=; b=K5ceHd9ho00Ekqg2Pg8iY8VM0HDwkdT/5gpUuWypHM8/1ffH3p2BVc8y BHATHJjYgUQxVlh7b83+Ut7DLZDlVDGm3EuVEyxVVIJLnMgLLaP13c3Vd lS1VrnFBsFZNjTX5xvjAPPM2wHo4Z5Sg/esHR9KA3m3MNx0ziXfYCi5tV o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CgAQDpPjpb/xbLJq1cGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYQrbRIog3mIY408KogujHaBegsjgVSCdQKDUzYWAQIBAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQJtHAyFNgEBAQECASMVNgsMBAsSAwECAgImAgIhKA4GAQwGAgEBgxwBgWc?= =?us-ascii?q?DDQgPp2aCHIRbgjYNgS6BKQWBC4k4P4EPJ4JoglZCAgMBgUZCglWCVQKNCYw?= =?us-ascii?q?SKwmGBoYMgwUGgUCEDIJGhUOKM0+BM4VSgUgDLoFSMxoIGxWCcAEzgkyISIU?= =?us-ascii?q?/PjCRWwEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,299,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="4864088"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Jul 2018 15:10:24 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.105] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-105.cisco.com [10.63.23.105]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w62FANow025388; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 15:10:24 GMT
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, netconf@ietf.org, "j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Cc: ibagdona@gmail.com, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis@ietf.org
References: <152899335818.26447.7759890925422555917.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <03ac01d411ef$f7d0cfe0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <50d82291-02de-bca3-5384-bc8a8e9e1cb3@cisco.com> <006001d41215$31eb3ba0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <473a14eb-3f38-b538-e597-94bc000b5dbb@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 16:10:23 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <006001d41215$31eb3ba0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/ZFa1LR6Wn3eL9HzXY_d1CUaVDw4>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Last Call: <draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06.txt> (YANG Library) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 02 Jul 2018 15:10:42 -0000


On 02/07/2018 15:58, t.petch wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Wilton" <rwilton@cisco.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 11:51 AM
>
>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> It is entirely up to the server implementation to decide what modules
>> should be put together into a single module set.
>>
>> Some examples of categories that could be used to group different
>> related modules together:
>>
>> (i) Modules that are common across all datastores, vs modules that are
>> only used for particular datastores (e.g. a dynamic datastore).
>>
>> (ii) Modules for different versions of software could be reported as
>> separate module sets. Only the module set(s) associated with a
>> particular software version would expect to be used. This hypothetical
>> example is from the YANG versioning work, and may or may not become a
>> recommendation depending on how that work pans out ...
>>
>> (iii) Sometimes vendors want to split their software up into separate
>> packages, and module sets could be used to represent these different
>> packages (e.g. core, vs L2VPN, vs L3VPN, vs Subscribers, etc).
>>
>> (iv) Sometimes devices need to support different schemas at the same
>> time (e.g. The IETF ecosystem, vs OpenConfig ecosystem, vs vendor
> native
>> ecosystem). Again, this is another case where module sets may be
> useful
>> to differentiate between the different groups.
>>
>> Of course, if a server is very simple, and none of the above applies,
>> then it could choose to have just a single module set.
>>
>> Does that help clarify their potential usage?
> Robert, Juergen
>
> Yes; in which case, I suggest adding a line to that effect.
>
> NEW s.3 after "... (and their submodules) used only for imports."
>
> The assignment of a module to a module-set is at the user's discretion.
> YANG library attaches no semantics as to which module-set a module is
> listed in.
I don't mind us adding this text, except that I would replace "user's" 
with "server's".

Juergen?

Thanks,
Rob

>
> Tom Petch
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On 02/07/2018 11:32, t.petch wrote:
>>> One aspect of this leaves me puzzled; what is a module set?
>>>
>>> Yes, I see that a data store schema is made up of module sets, which
> are
>>> made up of modules, but given, say, 40 modules, what criteria decide
>>> whether this is one set of 40, two of 20, half a dozen of varying
> size
>>> or what?
>>>
>>> Tom Petch
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
>>> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
>>> Cc: <ibagdona@gmail.com>om>; <mjethanandani@gmail.com>om>;
>>> <netconf-chairs@ietf.org>rg>; <draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis@ietf.org>rg>;
>>> <netconf@ietf.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 5:22 PM
>>>
>>>> The IESG has received a request from the Network Configuration WG
>>> (netconf)
>>>> to consider the following document: - 'YANG Library'
>>>>     <draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06.txt> as Proposed Standard
>>>>
>>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> solicits
>>> final
>>>> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>>>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-06-28. Exceptionally, comments
> may
>>> be
>>>> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
>>> beginning of
>>>> the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>>>
>>>> Abstract
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      This document describes a YANG library that provides
> information
>>>>      about the YANG modules, datastores, and datastore schemas used
> by a
>>>>      network management server.  Simple caching mechanisms are
> provided
>>> to
>>>>      allow clients to minimize retrieval of this information.  This
>>>>      version of the YANG library supports the Network Management
>>> Datastore
>>>>      Architecture by listing all datastores supported by a network
>>>>      management server and the schema that is used by each of these
>>>>      datastores.
>>>>
>>>>      This document obsoletes RFC 7895.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The file can be obtained via
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis/
>>>>
>>>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>>>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis/ballot/
>>>>
>>>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> .
>>>
> .
>