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

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
Sent: 20 September 2024 17:08

Let me clarify, I’m trying to close the "default 0” statement on the "local-port” leafs issue.  Whether rfc8407bis is updated is a secondary concern.

Andy (and others), do you believe this (to never set “default” or “mandatory”) to be a best-practice for reusable groupings?  Or more specifically and better for me, do you think the  "default 0” statement on the "local-port” leafs is okay or should be removed (in the tcl-client-server draft)?

<tp>
Perhaps this is conflating issues.

'mandatory', or not, to me is a function of the protocol; can it work without it?

'default' is trying to be helpful but IMHO is overdone.  Less expert users use it without perhaps understanding the consequences.  I like it when it is the obviously the right answer based on wide-spread, but not universal, use.  If in doubt, omit it and have the user think about it.  The 'description' cause offers a half-way house, 'this is likely what you want but you need to take responsibility for the decision'

Expert users will likely want defaults to save on the typing, less expert users may not want to have to think about it, but perhaps they should!

HTH

Tom Petch

Kent


> On Sep 20, 2024, at 11:14 AM, Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I do not think any new YANG guidelines need to be added to the already
> completed rfc8407bis.
> This is a design decision based on the intended reuse of the groupings.
>
> Here is a common sense guideline:  Document the grouping reuse limitations
> in the description-stmt.
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 8:02 AM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Can folks please chime in on this discussion to help bring it to a close?
>>
>> I rescinded my AUTH48 “approval” for the tcp-client-server draft pending
>> the outcome of this discussion.
>>
>> PS: I see that Thomas CC-ed NETMOD, which makes sense given a potential
>> update to rfc8407bis.
>>
>> Kent
>>
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2024, at 2:52 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>
>> Dear Kent, Andy and Alex,
>>
>> I think Alex statement
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/5Yaiom0B0lDTeSPOvgNfPIEFvBw/,
>> Andy's feedback and guidelines in
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8407#section-4.4 resp.
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-15#section-4.4
>> makes perfectly sense and I don't see why we should do else. As an
>> author, I suggest to add in section 4 of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis based
>> on the conclusion of this discussion guidelines on reusable YANG groupings.
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Thomas
>>
>> *From:* Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 18, 2024 3:12 AM
>> *To:* Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc:* [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> *Subject:* [netconf] Re: Default statements on udp-client-server groupings
>>
>> *Be aware:* This is an external email.
>>
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>>
>> The main purpose for YANG defaults is ease of use.
>> If there are less things to configure then the device is easier to use.
>> Without a default port then this parameter becomes mandatory to configure

_______________________________________________
netconf mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]