Re: [netconf] [netmod] pls clarify get operation

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Fri, 28 June 2019 08:50 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 7A371120143; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 01:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 9w3r9WmlNFKH; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 01:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de (atlas5.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66CA61200B7; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 01:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA0C699; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:50:16 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.198]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id 4H-CyByC1dwh; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:50:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (verified OK)) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:50:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C083520128; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:50:16 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10028) with ESMTP id 0-v5B_Hnrnze; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:50:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from exchange.jacobs-university.de (SXCHMB02.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.121]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "exchange.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (verified OK)) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B05820126; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:50:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from anna.localdomain (10.50.218.117) by sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.1713.5; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:50:15 +0200
Received: by anna.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 501) id 132F1300A8D8AA; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:50:14 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:50:14 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
CC: "Fengchong (frank)" <frank.fengchong@huawei.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "Zhangwei (SS)" <zhangwei70@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <20190628085014.ljxh73fcmiu6iqx7@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, "Fengchong (frank)" <frank.fengchong@huawei.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "Zhangwei (SS)" <zhangwei70@huawei.com>
References: <5756FB984666AD4BB8E1D63E2E3AA3D001ED5E20@dggemm513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <BYAPR11MB2631D3A01E398ADDBB294588B5FC0@BYAPR11MB2631.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB2631D3A01E398ADDBB294588B5FC0@BYAPR11MB2631.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
X-ClientProxiedBy: SXCHMB01.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.120) To sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/eat3rejCtUxqE0oGFxzReurVl8U>
Subject: Re: [netconf] [netmod] pls clarify get operation
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: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 08:50:21 -0000

Yes, both the NETCONF <get> operation and the RESTCONF GET on the
unified view of the underlying datastores have limitations and a
solution in situations where these limitations hurt is to move towards
NMDA.

/js

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 08:38:38AM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> Hi Frank,
> 
> Pre NMDA:
> 
>   *   You have a the <running> datastore, along with some others like <candidate> and <startup> that you can ignore for the purposes of this discussion.
>   *   The <running> datastore can only contains data for schema nodes that are marked as “config true” in YANG (i.e. “rw” in your tree output below).
>   *   The system may also have some operational state data that is marked as “config false” in YANG (i.e. “ro” in your tree output below).
> 
> The NETCONF <get-config> operation returns the contents of the <running> datastore.
> The NETCONF <get> operation returns the contents of the <running> datastore combined with all the operational state as well.  Filters can be applied to return a subset of the data.
> 
> Regarding your question about user created configuration vs system created configuration, it depends on whether the devices instantiates the configuration in <running> or not.  If it does, then it would be returned in <get> and <get-config> operations.  If it doesn’t then it would not.  Different vendors/devices will likely implement this in different ways.
> 
> Generally, I think that <running> should only contain the configuration explicitly configured by the operator’s systems.  But this means that there isn’t a clean way to represent system created configuration or applied configuration, unless you make a config false copy of every config true node in YANG.  This is approach that was taken by the original IETF YANG models (e.g. RFC 7223) before they were superseded by NMDA, and also the OpenConfig YANG models (but using a different structure – which also struggles to cleanly represent system created configuration data).
> 
> The NMDA architecture was written to solve this problem in a clean way without requiring duplication in the YANG data models.
> 
> Hopefully this helps clarify.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Fengchong (frank)
> Sent: 28 June 2019 04:29
> To: netconf@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org
> Cc: Zhangwei (SS) <zhangwei70@huawei.com>
> Subject: [netmod] 答复: pls clarify get operation
> 
> Hi all,
> 
>      Pls clarify this question. I have been confused for a long time.
> 
> ________________________________
> 华为技术有限公司 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
> [Company_logo]
> 个人签名:冯冲
> 手  机:13776612983
> 电子邮件:frank.fengchong@huawei.com<mailto:frank.fengchong@huawei.com>
> 公司网址:www.huawei.com<http://www.huawei.com>
> ________________________________
>  本邮件及其附件含有华为公司的保密信息,仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。禁
> 止任何其他人以任何形式使用(包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发)本邮件中
> 的信息。如果您错收了本邮件,请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件!
> This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which
> is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the
> information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial
> disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
> recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by
> phone or email immediately and delete it!
> 
> 发件人: Fengchong (frank)
> 发送时间: 2019年6月27日 9:59
> 收件人: 'netconf@ietf.org' <netconf@ietf.org<mailto:netconf@ietf.org>>; netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
> 抄送: Yangshouchuan <yangshouchuan@huawei.com<mailto:yangshouchuan@huawei.com>>; Zhangwei (SS) <zhangwei70@huawei.com<mailto:zhangwei70@huawei.com>>
> 主题: pls clarify get operation
> 
> Hi all,
> In RFC6241, get operation is defined as:
> 7.7<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6241#section-7.7>.7>.  <get>
> 
>    Description:  Retrieve running configuration and device state
> 
>       information.
> This description is too simply, so I think it should be clarified.
> 
> The case is: a data node modelled by one yang can be configured by user, but also can be created/modified by system or other protocols. If client issues get operation to retrieve this node,
>           The data is created/modified by system or other protocols SHOULD be returned?
>           For example:
>           Rib can be configured by user and also can be created by routing protocols. In RFC 8349, the rib list is defined as:
> 
> 
> 
>       +--rw ribs
> 
>          +--rw rib* [name]
> 
>             +--rw name              string
> 
>             +--rw address-family?   identityref
> 
>             +--ro default-rib?      boolean {multiple-ribs}?
> 
>             +--ro routes
> 
>             |  +--ro route*
> 
>             |        ...
> 
>             +---x active-route
> 
>             |  +---w input
> 
>             |  |  +---w v4ur:destination-address?   inet:ipv4-address
> 
>             |  |  +---w v6ur:destination-address?   inet:ipv6-address
> 
>             |  +--ro output
> 
>             |        ...
> 
>             +--rw description?      string
> 
> 
> 
>        If client issued get operation to retrieve ribs from non-NMDA device, rib instance created by routing protocols should be returned?
> 
>        Another associated question: If client issued get-config operation from non-NMDA device, only user-controlled rib instance should be returned?
> 



> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod


-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>