Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-07
Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Mon, 15 March 2021 23:07 UTC
Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29AE43A1234 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 N2Wij0TB8J0Q for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12f.google.com (mail-lf1-x12f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D3C13A1235 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12f.google.com with SMTP id d3so59423514lfg.10 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=K5ICuvaiyvbKF+g6Rd5gOsicAZ4qMDNBL+bnbXaz968=; b=lBinErFa11OcCMXUVl4PpXex6k2HQZgd1LgHQ+t1dzjM/x6Njm+AKgdirHsqnifoVg SYpqEzlADe3A+wp/6UOdXBE+wzn8XbAzPQv80oqTdN1bteLpe8iA4IJ0glpW817Hibs6 aYhUDTMVdqgPT0kiWSeK7TZe4nx+wqD9rXI1g9Lt3WmgSLg+M2SYQxbL2usSvhGzKw3S /gLRaxzeDk7QFrRKZiLZs+hdkLzs2deRJIEEbO5DxINK0peaD8BrMXlK00aQyFyjCgXa u2fGxjjjUZnsVb/s5dcSsrqweD6T/Byp4M2fH44eBlNzVFc1jSTgmNMe6qpuYst0e2zu cV3g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=K5ICuvaiyvbKF+g6Rd5gOsicAZ4qMDNBL+bnbXaz968=; b=sJm5g/CCkDP+KV5L2ksgLjSXPnldx+bH67OSiyV0j1Tsq22JEHbsxkOn+4kiUzhdK5 ri/F8xBMYCjctYg3y7EBw2P6JGq57oOEedQl03wawq+OizQQYPQqysMflScTcwf0gP5d z7AhcOETuVXX0VAgDNbbr3GiwrZN3G7568uOZWaUB0c48Z0zbp9y8WRv9nne5lZ4CrSH pDqTEJliF+sBsRakRcVFKHasm0z2mXQ6BAay6B8lofiAz6Vk7at8epDG4rScMXq5uxv3 2Ef8GIF422+xAdL8FFFW5Jvl0s/4AxE4IrffZIS0MSGEj2kTVjMKBgY9enQCn+SX1Roh daDQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530H6z5nFc059h/boazZjSOySb7mgnyUojgtFpEiraRBC0LaEh95 z0B5BqyUNYi3yytWwUvVWrl/LF7VaF5sbO8u6s2tAg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxYpzAy2Hf7OrRyVr4XN/QpmCreMH1BbQ0fa6NZHprVG3fVj4tg4aKdDRFDMlwEGPZ06pn7MVQTgljtHvA4ZAs=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:ee0d:: with SMTP id g13mr9584944lfb.38.1615849642695; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR11MB43662C6DC8C0E541D42DBF7CB5140@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAA8XPEHqN-z=K2q0-DqEE=EJvCAHMH8X9-eUxnfYpacLj8r8Gg@mail.gmail.com> <CABCOCHTEJKvchg7OtuJgJ=VjAGdtH0we=5WDWUFfhkcLBfQ2uw@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB43667D00F54AB5879D3036C9B5969@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CABCOCHTZLQ7ktEbHJn61pfBM-2-U_jQSoG=ajTG-PCXWFtnLFg@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB4366539F75C0C0892B8D9848B5969@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CABCOCHQHH0w2TVfO230ejnaPgCz3fjS7oj0vGQStnu-wcxq30g@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB43666C3BEDECF2BFA6473FDBB56C9@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAA8XPEGpC0-Nd9s_TOdRMOS39PSb6xuzh+-kubs=gcHmB1Ja9Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA8XPEGpC0-Nd9s_TOdRMOS39PSb6xuzh+-kubs=gcHmB1Ja9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:07:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQJCBwgZ3HKK2TdJVvH5mY0d0TA+Je8XNuWMxVuyr0Rqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@gmail.com>
Cc: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, NetMod WG Chairs <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff.all@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f6aed405bd9b4f62"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/0GnP2Wfz9MOxUkLqPDyXZBvc0Xc>
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-07
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 23:07:30 -0000
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:29 AM joel jaeggli <joelja@gmail.com> wrote: > yeah when there is an update we'll probably drop a reminder in the list > along with a link to the diff, but unless it looks major there's not > reason to ask for re-approval. > > It is actually a much more minor change than I thought when I first looked at it. The new way is better because the origin tracking feature is optional and the current draft ignores this YANG feature. > thanks > joel > Andy > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:26 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Andy, >> >> >> >> FYI, this issue was discussed in the Netmod session on Friday. >> >> >> >> My interpretation of the chairs position is ( >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glLcpQ9kpv0, starts at 6.10) is : As >> long as the WG is copied on my AD review comments and proposed changes >> (which they have been), then the WG has the opportunity to comment or >> object to the proposed changes if they wish, and lack of comment from the >> WG is taken as a tacit acceptance of the proposed changes. >> >> >> >> Given this, I think that the authors can apply the mark ups based on the >> agreements below (and my original nits), republish, and then hopefully we >> should be ready to progress this to IETF LC. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> Rob >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> >> *Sent:* 05 March 2021 18:46 >> *To:* Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> >> *Cc:* NetMod WG Chairs <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>; joel jaeggli < >> joelja@gmail.com>; draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff.all@ietf.org; >> netmod@ietf.org >> *Subject:* Re: AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-07 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 10:18 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Andy, >> >> >> >> I’m not sure which one you think is s a design change: Do you mean issue >> 3 or issue 4 below? >> >> >> >> I see that my response to issue 4 may not have been clear, so to clarify: >> >> >> >> By “okay”, I meant, that I am okay with how it is written in the current >> draft. My presumption is that this could be addressed as a future version >> of the module if this turns out be an issue, or vendors can define their >> own augmentation if needed. >> >> >> >> If you think issue 3 is a design change that requires WG consensus that I >> will leave it to the WG chairs to decide if they wish to issue a consensus >> call for it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The change: >> >> >> >> Current: default is to include origin attributes and client adds >> exclude-origin leaf to turn this off >> >> Proposed: default is to exclude origin attributes and client adds >> report-origin leaf to turn this on >> >> Also, report-origin has an if-feature because origin support in NMDA >> is optional. >> >> >> >> I have no objections to this proposal. >> >> My point all along has been that this is not my decision to make, it is a >> WG decision. >> >> It does not seem that there are any objections to making this change. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Rob >> >> >> >> >> >> Andy >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> >> *Sent:* 05 March 2021 16:36 >> *To:* Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> >> *Cc:* joel jaeggli <joelja@gmail.com>; >> draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff.all@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org >> *Subject:* Re: AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-07 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:58 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Andy, authors, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I think you mean to address this to the WG since the redesign issues need >> WG approval. >> >> I have no objections to any changes. >> >> >> >> >> >> Andy >> >> >> >> Sorry for the long delay in replying. >> >> >> >> Please see [RW] inline below … >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> >> *Sent:* 30 October 2020 01:43 >> *To:* joel jaeggli <joelja@gmail.com> >> *Cc:* Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; >> draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff.all@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org >> *Subject:* Re: AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-07 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 6:09 PM joel jaeggli <joelja@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Rob, >> >> >> >> These seem like reasonable suggestions. >> >> >> >> Lets see what the authors say. >> >> >> >> Thanks for this >> >> joel >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 6:47 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Here is my AD review for draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-07. Apologies for >> the delay. >> >> Thank you for writing this document, I think that it is useful, and looks >> like it is in good shape. >> >> >> Main comments: >> >> 1. Should there be any text about how to find out what datastores are >> supported by a device? E.g., pointing them to either YANG library, or >> protocol specific mechanisms in the case of RESTCONF. >> >> >> >> Do you have a section in mind and suggested text? >> >> *[RW] * >> >> *Perhaps somewhere in section 4, either as part of the description of >> source, or perhaps before the parameters are described.* >> >> >> >> *Proposed text:* >> >> *“A client can discover which datastores a server supports by reading >> YANG library [RFC 8525] from the operational state datastore.”* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2. It might be helpful to add a comment about potential issues that could >> arise by comparing <running> to <operational>, i.e., additional differences >> could be reported due to inactive configuration and template processing >> between <running> and <operational>. >> >> >> >> Do you have a section in mind and suggested text? >> >> You mean if there are differences between <running> and <intended> >> >> then a diff between <running> and <operational> will not be the same >> >> as a diff between <intended> and <operational>.? >> >> >> >> *[RW] * >> >> *My main concern is that if you have template expansion then comparing >> <running> and <operational> may not really give a meaningful comparison, >> since <running> is pre-template expansion, and <operational> (and >> <intended>) are both post template expansion.* >> >> >> >> *I would suggest putting some text in section 4 or perhaps the YANG >> module.* >> >> >> >> *Perhaps some text, something like: * >> >> >> >> * “Clients should to be aware that comparing <running> to <operational> >> will report differences due to any configuration transformation (e.g., >> inactive configuration, or the expansion of templates) between the >> <running> and <intended> datastores. In these scenarios, clients may get a >> more useful result by comparing the <intended> and <operational> datastores >> instead.”* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 3. I would prefer if 'exclude=origin' was in the reverse sense and >> perhaps called 'report-origin' instead. With the reverse sense it seems to >> be safer if new datastores are defined, where otherwise the behaviour could >> end being under specified. >> >> >> >> >> >> IMO the WG already designed the features so if the functional >> requirements have changed >> >> then the draft should go back to the WG for changes and new WG consensus >> calls. >> >> *[RW] * >> >> >> >> *I don’t see this as really changing the functional requirements, but >> just changing the default sense and name of an API parameter. Although, >> given my comments below “with-origin” might be better than “report-origin”.* >> >> >> >> *In RFC 8526, the “with-origin” parameter is off by default, and origin >> metadata is only included when the parameter is included. This keyword is >> also under a feature.* >> >> >> >> *So, changing the parameter name to “with-origin” and putting it under >> ”if-feature ietf-netconf-nmda:origin”, and making the default off, would >> make the definition more consistent with RFC 8526.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 4. Should there be an option to filter on origin metadata? E.g., only >> include values that come from intended. Otherwise, things like IP >> addresses learned from DHCP may always turn up as differences. >> >> >> >> IMO the WG already designed the features so if the functional >> requirements have changedthen the draft should go back to the WG for >> changes and new WG consensus calls. >> >> >> >> *[RW] * >> >> >> >> *Okay.* >> >> >> >> *Regards,* >> >> *Rob* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 5. I'm not that keen on the "Possible Future Extensions" section of an >> RFC. Personally, I would prefer that this section is deleted, but if you >> wish to retain it, then please can you move it to an appendix. >> >> >> >> OK with me to remove it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Andy >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I've also included some minor comments inline below, and some nits at the >> end: >> >> Abstract >> >> This document defines an RPC operation to compare management >> datastores that comply with the NMDA architecture. >> >> The abstract is perhaps somewhat terse. Perhaps: >> >> This document defines a YANG RPC operation to compare the >> contents of network management datastores that comply with >> the NMDA architecture and return the differences in the >> YANG-Patch format. >> >> >> 1. Introduction >> >> The revised Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) >> [RFC8342] introduces a set of new datastores that each hold YANG- >> defined data [RFC7950] and represent a different "viewpoint" on the >> data that is maintained by a server. New YANG datastores that are >> introduced include <intended>, which contains validated >> configuration >> data that a client application intends to be in effect, and >> <operational>, which contains at least conceptually operational >> state >> data (such as statistics) as well as configuration data that is >> actually in effect. >> >> I would suggest deleting "at least conceptually", since the <operational> >> datastore does contain all operational state, but it may be implemented >> as a virtual construct that spans multiple nodes (e.g., linecards) and >> processes. >> >> >> NMDA introduces in effect a concept of "lifecycle" for management >> data, allowing to clearly distinguish between data that is part of >> a >> configuration that was supplied by a user, configuration data that >> has actually been successfully applied and that is part of the >> operational state, and overall operational state that includes both >> applied configuration data as well as status and statistics. >> >> "allowing to clearly distinguish" => distinguishing" >> "status and statistics" => "status information and statistics" >> >> >> As a result, data from the same management model can be reflected >> in >> multiple datastores. Clients need to specify the target datastore >> to >> be specific about which viewpoint of the data they want to access. >> This way, an application can differentiate whether they are (for >> example) interested in the configuration that has been applied and >> is >> actually in effect, or in the configuration that was supplied by a >> client and that is supposed to be in effect. >> >> Perhaps reword the last sentence to match the logical data flow in the >> server: >> >> For example, a client application can differentiate whether they are >> interested in the configuration supplied to a server and that is >> supposed to be in effect, or the configuration that has been applied >> and is >> actually in effect on the server. >> >> >> When configuration that is in effect is different from >> configuration >> that was applied, many issues can result. It becomes more >> difficult >> to operate the network properly due to limited visibility of actual >> status which makes it more difficult to analyze and understand what >> is going on in the network. Services may be negatively affected >> (for >> example, breaking a service instance resulting in service is not >> properly delivered to a customer) and network resources be >> misallocated. >> >> Perhaps change "actual status" to "actual operational status". >> >> I also suggest changing the last sentence to: >> >> Services may be negatively affected (e.g., degrading or breaking a >> customer service) or network resources may be misallocated. >> >> >> 3. Definitions: >> >> It should probably define that <intended>, <operational>, (and perhaps >> <running>) are used to indicate names of datastores. >> >> It should also explain that <compare> is used as the name of a YANG RPC. >> >> >> 4. Data Model Overview >> >> At the core of the solution is a new management operation, >> <compare>, >> that allows to compare two datastores for the same data. >> >> Suggest rewording this first sentence to: >> >> The core of the solution is a new management operation, <compare>, >> that compares the data tree contents of two datastores. >> >> o target: The target identifies the datastore to compare against >> the >> source. >> >> Suggest adding an example ", e.g., <operational>." >> >> o filter-spec: This is a choice between different filter >> constructs >> to identify the portions of the datastore to be retrieved. It >> acts as a node selector that specifies which data nodes are >> within >> the scope of the comparison and which nodes are outside the >> scope >> >>
- [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… joel jaeggli
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… joel jaeggli
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… Alexander L Clemm
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… Rob Wilton (rwilton)