Re: [netconf] Truststore: bags, sets, or other?

"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> writes:

> +1
>
> This would also be my normal interpretation of a structure described as a "bag", although they don't seem to be that commonly used.

I think the term was coined in Smalltalk-80, where Bag is a subclass of Collection such that

- its elements are not ordered
- are not accessible by a key
- duplicates are allowed

Lada

>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netconf <netconf-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Schönwälder, Jürgen
> Sent: 01 February 2020 08:09
> To: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
> Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>; netconf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netconf] Truststore: bags, sets, or other?
>
> A common interpretation in various data structure libraries is this:
>
> set: unordered collection of something, duplicates not allowed
> bag: unordered collection of something, duplicates allowed
>
> /js
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:06:10PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>> 
>> >> NEW:
>> >>            +--rw <thing>-bags {<thing-feature>}?
>> >>               +--rw <thing>-bag* [name]
>> >>                  +--rw name string
>> >>                     +--rw <thing>* [name]
>> >>                        +--rw name string
>> >>                         …
>> >> 
>> >> Better, right?   Any other ideas?
>> > 
>> > We have current published modules with both "-list" and "-set".  No 
>> > "-bag" so far.
>> > 
>> > For example:
>> > 
>> >  "list rule-list" in ietf-netconf-acm
>> > 
>> >  "list module-set" in ietf-yang-library
>> 
>> True.
>> 
>> 
>> > There are some examples of "s" as well, but these are plural "s" for 
>> > a normal list of singletons, and should have been named w/o the 
>> > plural "s" (if we were to be consistent).
>> > 
>> > I would try to avoid "s" for a "list-of-lists", but then pick the 
>> > suffix that feels most natural in the domain.  (For example, rather 
>> > "list access-control-list" than "list access-control-set”).
>> 
>> Agreed.
>> 
>> > Perhaps you can argue that "-list" works better for ordered 
>> > sequences, and "-set" and "-bag" for unordered.  But then there are 
>> > "ordeded sets" and "unordered lists" (and even apparently "ordered 
>> > bag", in UML).
>> 
>> Perhaps.
>> 
>> > The plural "s" is better for a surrounding container (if one exists).
>> 
>> Agreed.
>> 
>> 
>> I also received a private response from Russ, who rather not join the netconf list, but said:
>> 
>> 1) “bag” was originally created to deal with issues with ASN.1 the SET and SEQUENCE types, and since have entered general crypto parlance outside the PKCS#12 context.
>> 
>> 2) “bag” is the ideal term for when conveying a unordered collection of X.509 certificates.
>> 
>> 3) “bag” is not known to be used in the context of SSH host keys or RPKs, but there isn’t anything wrong or bad with doing so either.
>> 
>> All said, I believe the best course is to use “bag” and, more specifically, to use the "/x-bags/x-bag/…” structure that is present at the top of this message.   Assuming there are no objections, this change will be in the next update.
>> 
>> 
>> Kent
>> 
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netconf mailing list
>> netconf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>
> -- 
> 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/>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka 
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67