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

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

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