[netconf] Re: Default statements on udp-client-server groupings

[[e-mail]]

Hi Alex, all,

Agree with your conclusion. Thanks.

Cheers,
Med

De : Alex Huang Feng <[e-mail]>
Envoyé : lundi 9 septembre 2024 17:19
À : Netconf <[e-mail]>
Cc : [e-mail]; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>
Objet : Default statements on udp-client-server groupings

Dear NETCONF,

I would like to follow up on the discussions from the NETCONF WG meeting regarding the udp-client-server grouping draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-03)
There is one last remaining issue that I'd like feedback from the WG before asking for WGLC.

On the last iteration of the draft (draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-03), I removed the default statement from the port leaves. The default statement was present in both client and server ports leaves (local and remote).
See the diff between -02 and -03 here: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-02&url2=draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-03&difftype=--html

The reasons are the followings:
- When there is a default statement in the grouping and a user "uses" this grouping, the user is obligated to refine this default port with another valid port. For protocols (and users) that do not need a default port, they are still obligated to refine this default port if they want to use this grouping. YANG does not allow to remove the default statement (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7950#section-7.13.2) when a YANG module uses a grouping.
- The groupings defined in this draft are generic and it is my understanding that having this default statement would prevent some use cases (Note the feedback from Med: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/j-2Hh6PO-QcHZetZ0ebujxsVLL0/)
- As a first user of the udp-client grouping, I am already encountering this problem. I am using this grouping in the UDP-Notif YANG model, in which I don't need to define a default port for the protocol.

Of course, removing this port presents its disadvantages:
- By removing this default statement, the udp-groupings are not consistent anymore with the tcp-client-server-groupings. In tcp-client-server groupings, the default statement is present in both the ports of the client and server.

Thus, I would like to hear more feedback from the list on whether this default statement needs to be present in the port leaves or not.
My preference (and from the list, I would also say Med agrees) is that this default statement should not be present to provide a reusable grouping for a larger group of use cases.

Regards,
Alex

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.