Re: [Netconf] mbj's WGLC review of yang-push-17

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Mon, 24 September 2018 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.net>
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 5D901130F53 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:16:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.711
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.711 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 sKfcsvHa3jtL for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (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 87718130EF7 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108161.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w8OIE24I010950; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:15:59 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=LSQNrOHyOWBQuC8+0jnk5CmKPYVXHrj8IjJxituAwu8=; b=XQn6w9aKfomuHI2gHUs7f+qA8EAAYJN4eegh8Bp6UxeQQMkI9lpo1tiTcgFhldFh5vKU BJzT7C9C0p3kYKIhvzO/008tQp1gvpKyTUkICA+RagD/MwrdN2ZHB1elt1vKwnmFS33F fTlCVgRZfP8MnY3bo4xgAZHxJ3NmMZhp2FbNJFLztB8Ga2+oPqApqQM6EgH3LBiIfAzf CWrErYHDqjiPxyLyMhd/UNgUOYqU1bedRLfUsdiQBG1Sfji8xeMl5USyZE7tRNzFmEiA bdFB2BR//MAN7AiAfFJJmU11Yzl/n+DZuFJcoXj00yT1piwoOII/X7jhUr8GUIFh2bMu Zg==
Received: from nam04-co1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam04lp0052.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.181.52]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2mpxsg0uk6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:15:58 -0700
Received: from DM6PR05MB4665.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.176.109.202) by DM6PR05MB4041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.176.71.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1185.14; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 18:15:56 +0000
Received: from DM6PR05MB4665.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8574:3388:660d:e495]) by DM6PR05MB4665.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8574:3388:660d:e495%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1185.014; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 18:15:56 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "alexander.clemm@huawei.com" <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] mbj's WGLC review of yang-push-17
Thread-Index: AQHUNImouJGUP0t9tESR9VzM68tuEKTUcIIAgABzP4CAARMGAIAA0q0AgADJvACAIJtvAIAA1BAAgAC6LgCABYyYAIAAb66A
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 18:15:56 +0000
Message-ID: <A1DF23A4-3D00-43D7-B121-D9F567B2A43F@juniper.net>
References: <3B841FC9-63F4-41DD-BCE2-AA543FDADA5C@juniper.net> <20180920.094520.798604819426315275.mbj@tail-f.com> <644DA50AFA8C314EA9BDDAC83BD38A2E0EB691A5@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20180924.093612.1791958587714330227.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180924.093612.1791958587714330227.mbj@tail-f.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.13]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DM6PR05MB4041; 6:9KHGm3CGknOtmo/a7AshFIAm3FHV+PPkYP45LbuTvORMDmRB/+HZeuP/Cm5BjuGfjCfViYClr71tY9GYv0A3WmGfgLINofH/RrHXPMpF1amEP+TI7H5Z88ZdZ/NDmcEWh1s/DXCoPMGJL6VmdcVwR0gXcfvh9I5pwSwOhzXl8LDsq9ko4TrszXMR7gPLTdCTVFW8cdnGhICejGG7oU1FS3hy5k4Q98dgYdig10Dbc/s7udJeihiRbUeJnf5v/EqlUr+U10/OUFfFYN6NV/lRytdX937fraUtFaAf7XVBLXjLqA/c/MrujNdva1SvZSW7aVo2ISROHzF2xxgYB/1y1QqsDIrYE14+GQAlca8Yy8CAHD55m81la7B5w3aKADMmj2Dh2C6u+RM/Z9C/8l6ozBF/ZqXfWflj4xvY1bKRiUaDoa2zXp4Xyk8w8dMfbzNBzE4kgPm0B8KgUE67irzI4Q==; 5:WEZriq/J4W+WyOQRUiQNyMkihUGFB3PHldJF1FYw+Uuf4iSYltJatOsYrHph3CN3/XthCxd9dkBJmOfE/BXoX8Jc0j2hlbizyL15NCyLxZH5TGrKfED7ebTUtRReJpEHQ5scGWfoHk/01T3aTl8UifPWHCjeX8IwgMpkTDQmU/k=; 7:5solQB7mxuxGcJYMgmr2UKN4UL0gUQA3R9TcFeYSTbt0diJaO6bwfju/b9oCbsuX2xZ8NgyAX0fIVDd2TJCBn0p+SFAMpzT+WB9is66Ok8DKi4fKV/PqbbKnHifvggpM0lF7Lnr0hiH5mO9EIgLBhzQhvx9gNaj7h1zSTKm42VmM4im0/Qyu9k19GNbu7uY5/Wtj1w86giHuErKVH6olFWPlaGOm9nu4AshwH98BmgL13uyGe1/dpHc+m7YEvFk2
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f0523b8c-7af3-4acb-ac2d-08d62249c5d0
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600074)(711020)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:DM6PR05MB4041;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR05MB4041:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR05MB40417E50CB708627D3990275A5170@DM6PR05MB4041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(278428928389397)(50582790962513);
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3231355)(944501410)(52105095)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(149066)(150027)(6041310)(20161123564045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560045)(20161123558120)(20161123562045)(201708071742011)(7699051); SRVR:DM6PR05MB4041; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM6PR05MB4041;
x-forefront-prvs: 0805EC9467
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(136003)(39860400002)(376002)(396003)(366004)(346002)(199004)(189003)(51444003)(6246003)(36756003)(82746002)(305945005)(256004)(7736002)(58126008)(6116002)(4326008)(3846002)(93886005)(110136005)(11346002)(476003)(2616005)(14454004)(486006)(6506007)(446003)(26005)(6486002)(186003)(6512007)(86362001)(76176011)(229853002)(33656002)(5660300001)(2900100001)(53936002)(99286004)(68736007)(102836004)(6436002)(105586002)(478600001)(8676002)(81166006)(2906002)(66066001)(2501003)(5250100002)(316002)(25786009)(71200400001)(8936002)(83716004)(97736004)(81156014)(106356001)(71190400001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM6PR05MB4041; H:DM6PR05MB4665.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: OLtHhRVVPF8g4g4IQ9Wld7Hc7TrqguYup1aTprQNBeklOkFKytcyyEvLlmn+Rzg+5Trn//5lTX1KxsuG2aZho32SAJkLNgz6ZdE0TbwDw6c+IMa+bzGpglOvw/mX711wYei/I0DrRTbgamdRvYzLFCZjRGrrIV7IIvGPlUWG/S0JNtjNGNJ5fHS9xpTcQUd3Xt+j5+DElRPbKWyvtxn/sI4skyV3zsEpw/aj+M+uq4aeaYDyf1X4mDkNCsuBgtc13daBuDrZyRgTb1Ldh3MmDiddrx9gsDNgcv6hi3N4c4ZOpqPmkNQOyWkP6SzeIhoBMWiF+sXAVsTQ9pHDKQfyaUJAieIdv6LJqIX999kZFsE=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <826CB44D0A96184C81C576E4A89F5F0C@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f0523b8c-7af3-4acb-ac2d-08d62249c5d0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Sep 2018 18:15:56.5154 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR05MB4041
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-09-24_11:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1809240174
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/dLebXp2P4hDT2Ewh2vmD-mWFeHU>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] mbj's WGLC review of yang-push-17
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 24 Sep 2018 18:16:15 -0000


>Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com> wrote:
>> I am about to post -19 but I do not like the suggested change to go
>> from timeticks to seconds.
>> 
>> Seconds is a fairly coarse unit.  I would not be surprised to see
>> requirements for finer granularity in the future, even more so in
>> virtualization and controller scenarios in which we start to see YANG
>> being used.  There are applications that use single second periods
>> today so I think it is entirely conceivable to see need for subsecond
>> support down the line.  To allow periods only in units of seconds
>> would seem to unnecessarily hobble ourselves.  Keeping things to
>> timeticks is more futureproof IMHO.
>
> Ok.

I agree that seconds is too course. Hundredths of a second is maybe too
fine, but I won't complain.  That said, I think that it might be an
uncommon scenario and that having hundredths of a second will likely
result in very large numbers.

FWIW, yang:timeticks doesn't seem as intuitive as "units" - for example:

          leaf period {
-           type yang:timeticks;
+           type uint16;
+           units "Hundredths of a second";
            mandatory true;
            description
              "Duration of time which should occur between periodic
               push updates.";
          }

At least I know what this means right away.  I was hoping to find an example
in -19 illustrating its use, but it's none is present.  

BTW, I note that RFC 6991 says:

         When a schema
         node is defined that uses this type, the description of
         the schema node identifies both of the reference epochs.

Which I don't see in -19.

Would it make sense to use a 2-tuple?  Something like:

          leaf period {
            type uint16;
            mandatory true;
            description
              "Duration of time which should occur between periodic
               push updates.";
          }
          leaf period-units {
            type enumeration {
              enum hundredths;
              enum tenths;
              enum seconds;
              enum minutes;
              enum hours;
            }
            mandatory true;
          }



Kent // contributor