Re: [netconf] Generic Capabilities model

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Thu, 05 December 2019 21:44 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 0BC11120168 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 13:44:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=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 PyAttK4F7Z9O for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 13:44:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (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 1ABDC120073 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 13:44:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id h23so5304954ljc.8 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 13:44:08 -0800 (PST)
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=x/0xwhZHatPjIFezNXyDtpWmjKrMIyp/vP0YpVC65dI=; b=fpfRv+FT3PMZFxQKaPmhGN8yyT7/mjIEHez6gtcumMYvDMuL1qzbchLKwkxu1cbA9t lnl+TMY4ZX1VRQc1LyDVBJKEdveAJ3MMXzbeUOQB9P//Y4q/AVIfsHhNhApfXPHTFyLM VY3se0sTkOmeGPgHVuev8lcdV6m9hziUnNeXck3mx74qeOXp4bTVe/iCh561Q2lunT2R WA24JmWDq2krO38bq/TbW5pk3NI6hWsudUVzktL15l+OzI0NebO2zdCTLqSOK3U397le r0tH35yw1iw7Pu8Pvhfrm59cE0G4UfAq79+QGe6cf3rdPo0bxgNjDJSitTSYto3NNh2J CUZA==
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=x/0xwhZHatPjIFezNXyDtpWmjKrMIyp/vP0YpVC65dI=; b=XbcEuqiZvd54IGE0GM1T6rWrBK6AoJw3RXeNeUXSE4HAXyuA/F+mHHadLgPiE6u85h 1YNm12xvWIwp+69ykS2kVNVIlA1CvOd7jDU3qqKeK//yncErTcZ3HisuHShkGUefKIE0 Y7WbOGUtLNdPWImC1aRTbzdlDtK1W7jrWimK2Oh1KuzRLJ9W7YGzZZ3M1yIXpBxyjuWY 2x+vKt+IicmOJ7aYw5BjIfakANNUUWlXqnc3x0PlCNSpFIbOl6yw5kggWKLEnVbm+6KF OvKJZc62AOWRyl4ySEV61zUoos3EOJw15XZX1Gt7l27cm+MfhPh0la7RZcAfz1LMaRNM 8SKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWcEhp/cAJHDZO/5+S1XlJBVpzy7slIBDdeN0Eh5OnP9v4bQ3/3 cbFN3hc2UNgOVH/ZtWfQSpvSiXDigFE2y8IgGPf7sw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw9dZolfGHUj2dl0cndMhKfkFqaLSBSjfFHbekjeazI3oPfhsMJLgCacDba5dUxzDQwZlz0KkHEU3eKFGdk85E=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9899:: with SMTP id b25mr6597147ljj.70.1575582246198; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 13:44:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA94AFE56@dggeml511-mbx.china.huawei.com> <397e7465-7578-27a6-c47b-0be11a406948@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <397e7465-7578-27a6-c47b-0be11a406948@cisco.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 13:43:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CABCOCHRiA4-mvcex7vDAqKS_E-9133ycZLm6Tc2QN2eKs9Rysw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Cc: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001977910598fbd439"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/c3vJpN16bMX8XcO0hRZMH0oaKKY>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Generic Capabilities model
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 21:44:11 -0000

Hi,

I strongly support this generic capabilities work.
IMO this approach would make NMDA much easier for a client to support,
since the new /yang-library
would not be needed for this purpose.  Instead, a simple "nmda-operational"
capability could be used in this module
to easily identify which config=true nodes should be expected in
<operational>.

The complexity in /yang-library might be justified if new writable
datastores (like <ephemeral>) are
ever introduced, but not for solving the problem "what features does this
server support for the specified
data node (resource)"?


Andy


On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:15 AM Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Qin,
>
> I would agree.
> I believe it's important to have a generic solution. I can picture more
> augmentations.
> The change is trivial IMO, i.e. modify the ietf-notification-capabilities
> model
>
>    - Rename the top level container to system-capabilities
>    - Add a container subscription-capabilities to the grouping
>    subscription-capabilities to contain all subscription related capabilities
>    - Invite others to augment the model with similar groupings for other
>    capabilities.
>
> Regards, Benoit.
>
> Hi, Balazs:
>
> In last IETF meeting, you offered a proposal in netmod session on
> notification capability change that was discussed in netmod session.
>
> I think it is a good idea to define generic capabilities model in
> draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-netmod-sessb-generic-model-for-server-capabilities-00
>
> since we have other capabilities that need to be covered, one of example
> such capability is one that can be self-described in
>
> draft-tao-netmod-yang-node-tags
> <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-tao-netmod-yang-node-tags-00.txt>.
>
> With such new capability, should we augment from YANG Push model or should
> we augment from notification capability?
>
> We see one downside of augmenting from YANG Push model, is it only can be
> used in the running time, it can not be used in the design time or
>
> Implementation time.
>
>
>
> So I think if one generic capability model can be defined, it will allow
> more flexibility to add new capability. However if we decide to take this
> approach,
>
> Probably notification capabilities draft require substantial changes to
> the current model structure. But I think it worth to do so, in my personal
> view.
>
>
>
> -Qin
>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing listnetconf@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>