Re: [netconf] mbj review of draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-01

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Tue, 26 March 2019 13:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 0B94C120043 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 06:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 QU9nJVFZ0U4Y for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 06:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81986120003 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 06:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (dhcp-97ad.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.151.173]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 505E01AE08F1; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 14:01:05 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 14:01:02 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20190326.140102.310852457337101560.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: evoit@cisco.com
Cc: balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com, netconf@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <cfb2f23fb199437eb714d67ad86e44a1@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <e333e4e3-2c40-2f19-5035-d6d24a0adcab@ericsson.com> <20190326.121231.1546381642017000114.mbj@tail-f.com> <cfb2f23fb199437eb714d67ad86e44a1@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/qdKB8_BgICDvDyGUmuyimQPLBB0>
Subject: Re: [netconf] mbj review of draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-01
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: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:01:10 -0000

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>; wrote:
> > >     o  General
> > >
> > >   In YP, support for on-change is optional.   There is a feature
> > >   called "on-change".  I think this document should state explicitly
> > >   that this module is intended for servers that implement that
> > >   feature.
> > >
> > > BALAZS: OK, but some other capacity related proerties are still valid.
> > 
> > What other capacity related properties do you mean?
> 
> The latest draft allows minimum periodic reporting intervals to be set.

Ok.  Then perhaps the nodes that are specific to on-change should have
a if-feature "yp:on-change".

> > >     o  Section 3.2
> > >
> > >   minimum-dampening-period is optional.  It should be stated what it
> > >   means if this leaf is not present.   (or should the default be 0?)
> > >
> > > BALAZS: If not present it means that the system does not tell you what
> > > it is. No special meaning. I do not see a reasonable minimum value
> > > (eventhough 0 would look strange). IMHO it is the responsibility of
> > > the server to provide a meaningful value. If it says zero, that's
> > > obviously crazy, just ignore it. I don't thing we need to have rules,
> > > like: do not provide stupid state data.
> > 
> > Note that 0 is the default in YP, so I don't know why you think it is crazy.
> > 
> > I suggest you add default "0" to this.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> > >     o  Section 3.2
> > >
> > >   The choice update-period is not mandatory, and doesn't have a
> > >   default.  What does it mean if this is not reported?
> > >
> > > BALAZS: If not present it means that the system does not tell you what
> > > it is. No special meaning.
> > 
> > I think this should be clarified in the description.
> > 
> > >     o  Section 3.2
> > >
> > >   The leaf max-objects-per-update is not mandatory.  What does it mean
> > >   if this is not reported?  It can have the value 0.  What does that
> > >   mean?
> > >
> > > BALAZS: If not present it means that the system does not tell you what
> > > it is. No special meaning.
> > >
> > > I do not see a reasonable minimum value (eventhough 0 would look
> > > strange). IMHO it is the responsibility of the server to provide a
> > > meaningful value. If it says zero, that's obviously crazy, just ignore
> > > it.
> > 
> > I suggest you add a range "1..max" to the type.
> 
> Is max necessary?   I would assume that when this is not populated,
> it is  by default max (per below).

Currently the type is just a uint32.  I think we should limit the
range so that 0 is not a valid value.  The way to do that in YANG is:

  type uint32 {
    range "1..max";
  }


/martin



> 
> Eric
>  
> > >       Perhaps make a union of uint32 0..max and the enum "infinite" and
> > >   make that the default?  (of course "infinite" is not really
> > >   correct...)
> > >
> > > BALAZS: IMHO infinite is unreasonable. If the server doesn't know the
> > > real limit, it should just not provide a value.
> > 
> > Ok, makes sense.  I think this should be clarified in the description.
> > 
> > 
> > /martin
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > netconf mailing list
> > netconf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>