Re: [netconf] Generic Capabilities model

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Fri, 06 December 2019 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@cisco.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 0CDE212006D for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 10:46:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.489
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=Ih4PptHk; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=aqVDSvvW
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 8rBlygeATapr for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 10:46:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC96012004A for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 10:46:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=21139; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1575657981; x=1576867581; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=46q/CdaFTt5i6V5eeIwdo3jwc0w9EnIX2t81zwG4ekk=; b=Ih4PptHkVfVAOL5QIt9Jf94jQGFaMK6Hos4ZJN5Vzl9zwlgyjyIRSGRT TB+n7Ruh2F/3qKVl0y2bU2y1D1C/npwRX2uumkefHpDc+C2tvbGPuCk5C kjQ9StrfevQpxozZCWCsfbI3VHgjlIbUPPZYSiM53EvX6bRQEXlM50K8G 8=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AZPecMBAI6hwlq8ji4t5gUyQJPHJ1sqjoPgMT9p?= =?us-ascii?q?ssgq5PdaLm5Zn5IUjD/qs13kTRU9Dd7PRJw6rNvqbsVHZIwK7JsWtKMfkuHw?= =?us-ascii?q?QAld1QmgUhBMCfDkiuNuTjbykzGuxJVURu+DewNk0GUMs=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BNAACtoOpd/51dJa1bChsBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BBQEBAREBAQMDAQEBgWwEAQEBCwGBGy8kLAVsWCAECyqELINGA4sAgl+TI4R?= =?us-ascii?q?igS6BJANUCQEBAQwBARgBDgYCAQGDe0UCF4F+JDYHDgIDDQEBBAEBAQIBBQR?= =?us-ascii?q?thTcMhVIBAQEBAwEBEBEdAQEsCwEPAgEIEQMBAg4aAwICAiULFAkIAQEEAQ0?= =?us-ascii?q?FGweDAAGBeU0DLgEOoioCgTiIYXWBMoJ+AQEFgTUBAwICDw9vgj8YghcDBoE?= =?us-ascii?q?2AYwXGoFBP4ERJyCCTD6CPiYBAQOBNRU2DQmCWjKCLJAnhVCJTo8WCoIuhyO?= =?us-ascii?q?EY4lfG5oxjkqIRJFmAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFZCCoqgS5wFTsqAYJBUBEUjGaDc4U?= =?us-ascii?q?UhT90AYEnjVABAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,285,1571702400"; d="scan'208,217";a="664458239"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 06 Dec 2019 18:46:20 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id xB6IkKD7024115 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 6 Dec 2019 18:46:20 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 12:46:19 -0600
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 12:46:19 -0600
Received: from NAM11-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 13:46:18 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=HEkdl6n37yPG8kTEuUCwIR199zjduESjkzvcg9QGrRkEVTSInZpsNpM3ICdCWrNYdceFWXexSJBKeCoD6EjHKF9wLRJjGFho7crT9MweyJJ/IJUfbeKaTL+OOA6TBZM7OfXeCpYvXHJRBMY6N3koNBshgdUuZ6JbgHTAHEjpiBChAFOfx5w2OfQxddPP7v4WUHNUwP4VwEUCc13co8188/IWni+HarkT8nNh60qppd4YdHZj1ZWgQISZXwrxQvLm4AZ7EcWuSw5wV2UDz1HRjv3y1kIT2IEjCMsIjXsLhXuRgavEYtEw8ikPRBYBvmd70j3tStZePKRUzodH+HPlbA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=46q/CdaFTt5i6V5eeIwdo3jwc0w9EnIX2t81zwG4ekk=; b=mhmIRoUTOVr0Kd7pbpD9ASsEFOFMMvsXyfd+d6+Y50lZ7qi/JPo2ugdfjChdywLs57RPaJ+WHS++8eSVtf0IgYehMQLoO2wf46wsBrxLCAJG5ry4HrOXq0gVjkJMSSPPi8amU2Bc3kmXWxjyQlE1BiDVpurFwxYCP5xAUPteq7oHwTYaUCjNF0vvEwS3Llfncj52N/jZrc6J26t25zJiOgTwYX812zVAjiqpCBTNj/jxXsOxUUj9vnTtoDx0SIqGIlzhu6I6DQOxlZqTDfyGbL0ZmpxhMqEH+feKTgSPC/mOFPvH8eb+XjyGMwJeW3LUY6Nm4p1GxijJf9CVInVK3w==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=46q/CdaFTt5i6V5eeIwdo3jwc0w9EnIX2t81zwG4ekk=; b=aqVDSvvWV7mwQSekQhPrHUv+QgLGm3psX9oo6YOsXkZrjEju9+M7gqGJc+3V6QDr26kN/yX+t0J4P3OQZ9ehSMOSxV+I39JKSzKyluFbyAt6nH6ZWT9SJS+iH7PJAH0Y1/XS04AxnjNs8zOePL6R5vIp/u9FfuUnKCSBh558FVc=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4157.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.255.181.213) by MN2PR11MB4285.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.39.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2516.17; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 18:46:16 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4157.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f030:6ed6:391f:e3eb]) by MN2PR11MB4157.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f030:6ed6:391f:e3eb%5]) with mapi id 15.20.2516.014; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 18:46:16 +0000
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] Generic Capabilities model
Thread-Index: AdWrHi7eIq0bEJsrSBqCRqY5LAgWxAAcVsMAAAljaYAAIZwUAA==
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 18:46:16 +0000
Message-ID: <960F9BA1-62A4-4BB6-B6AF-D338B0C1FD61@cisco.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA94AFE56@dggeml511-mbx.china.huawei.com> <397e7465-7578-27a6-c47b-0be11a406948@cisco.com> <CABCOCHRiA4-mvcex7vDAqKS_E-9133ycZLm6Tc2QN2eKs9Rysw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHRiA4-mvcex7vDAqKS_E-9133ycZLm6Tc2QN2eKs9Rysw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1e.0.191013
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rrahman@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:2840:1250:6900:eb73:e481:aee6]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b2732afb-9a8c-4a5b-97b0-08d77a7c93bc
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4285:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB42855FA4E85948E26028E9D2AB5F0@MN2PR11MB4285.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 0243E5FD68
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(366004)(39860400002)(396003)(376002)(136003)(189003)(199004)(6636002)(102836004)(76176011)(54896002)(6506007)(4326008)(33656002)(99286004)(86362001)(53546011)(6512007)(2906002)(966005)(110136005)(58126008)(36756003)(561944003)(316002)(478600001)(6486002)(66556008)(71200400001)(81156014)(2616005)(5660300002)(71190400001)(186003)(81166006)(91956017)(8676002)(76116006)(229853002)(8936002)(64756008)(66446008)(66946007)(66476007)(41533002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB4285; H:MN2PR11MB4157.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_960F9BA162A44BB6B6AFD338B0C1FD61ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b2732afb-9a8c-4a5b-97b0-08d77a7c93bc
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 06 Dec 2019 18:46:16.7639 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: tun/rCqFTYz7Dc4O8ZKzAhRJSnIXIUTdWyGcR6+UR0gyPfCOgYMmmSgs2TuEdQBjZeN0jXotEOvjpUewpR5klw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4285
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.11, xch-rcd-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/vMCT9jOeIMiDI5CIV36jvtZAXaA>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Generic Capabilities model
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, 06 Dec 2019 18:46:24 -0000

+1 for the generic capabilities work.

From: netconf <netconf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of 'Andy Bierman' <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 4:44 PM
To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com>
Cc: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Generic Capabilities model

Hi,

I strongly support this generic capabilities work.
IMO this approach would make NMDA much easier for a client to support, since the new /yang-library
would not be needed for this purpose.  Instead, a simple "nmda-operational" capability could be used in this module
to easily identify which config=true nodes should be expected in <operational>.

The complexity in /yang-library might be justified if new writable datastores (like <ephemeral>) are
ever introduced, but not for solving the problem "what features does this server support for the specified
data node (resource)"?


Andy


On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:15 AM Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco..com<mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Qin,

I would agree.
I believe it's important to have a generic solution. I can picture more augmentations.
The change is trivial IMO, i.e. modify the ietf-notification-capabilities model

  *   Rename the top level container to system-capabilities
  *   Add a container subscription-capabilities to the grouping subscription-capabilities to contain all subscription related capabilities
  *   Invite others to augment the model with similar groupings for other capabilities.

Regards, Benoit.
Hi, Balazs:
In last IETF meeting, you offered a proposal in netmod session on notification capability change that was discussed in netmod session.
I think it is a good idea to define generic capabilities model in draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-netmod-sessb-generic-model-for-server-capabilities-00
since we have other capabilities that need to be covered, one of example such capability is one that can be self-described in
draft-tao-netmod-yang-node-tags<https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-tao-netmod-yang-node-tags-00.txt>xt>.
With such new capability, should we augment from YANG Push model or should we augment from notification capability?
We see one downside of augmenting from YANG Push model, is it only can be used in the running time, it can not be used in the design time or
Implementation time.

So I think if one generic capability model can be defined, it will allow more flexibility to add new capability. However if we decide to take this approach,
Probably notification capabilities draft require substantial changes to the current model structure. But I think it worth to do so, in my personal view.

-Qin



_______________________________________________

netconf mailing list

netconf@ietf.org<mailto:netconf@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

_______________________________________________
netconf mailing list
netconf@ietf.org<mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf