IETF Logo Mail Archive

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13 - section 4.26.2

"Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <bart.bogaert@nokia.com> Mon, 28 August 2017 10:39 UTC

Return-Path: <bart.bogaert@nokia.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 809A9132932 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Aug 2017 03:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nokia.onmicrosoft.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 gt1H3plzeXxs for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Aug 2017 03:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR03-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr50099.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.5.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABBBA1201F8 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Aug 2017 03:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nokia-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=h2Aa9iOBbvTjTtFbX9HqbjiwYA0xDxsAV4Aq0sXW1io=; b=CBcCMzmA8u4jq//WETXqtvf7kabPBQ73NmbzKXuZyUw6j2oF7h9lT6zvZ1PxPqsMLXxlHWENB6rDmBuFZgbahSNgMljsVq/hD58ft/5qOcUb7VfBzB3A4OPCZjWPRdWs14sgNnmEIRV0LoWh4ger5+5EkIkq4GGHMdM6hrO+vrI=
Received: from AM2PR07MB0627.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.160.54.154) by AM2PR07MB0627.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.160.54.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.13.2; Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:39:50 +0000
Received: from AM2PR07MB0627.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::29ff:1d4:e609:1ac9]) by AM2PR07MB0627.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::29ff:1d4:e609:1ac9%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0013.008; Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:39:50 +0000
From: "Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <bart.bogaert@nokia.com>
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13 - section 4.26.2
Thread-Index: AdMf6AkHeZqeSOpkR0uJ21uWjEaq5Q==
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:39:50 +0000
Message-ID: <AM2PR07MB06272C83075A2F7404910829949E0@AM2PR07MB0627.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=bart.bogaert@nokia.com;
x-originating-ip: [135.245.212.3]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM2PR07MB0627; 6:cYXaSSCk0Pr83ucfT4FWLG6V85/je3QwU3tO406Q+b7Y9DuENK3XnC9OGfjyfmqYSZAWwJndu19fDAPOmquxh6r0dknBthRHYeQoq9KP2ADMmXQBj2fiaA1f4ZTo2/L4Gb114bxF4xMScIXCfcJ69DsHyNSoA8ER4HHJl8CCeDDD/RKqh53nx+IzyzES1eFfJKfRCLK3l1VDit9Eku4UL7DpWnVgUP2xe2akgB04qUzBDj7mBMNGM+B/bhnpjLpmKUTcB1vb3pn1wPMz9KIAAZCZf6hcIXM98ng7nR8I1S3OlWBNzRuEVvO08HgU9VYZvynpInrVd5ALo5DNE4rhTg==; 5:+NoVjW5kD1s1h+36ANNdaTUBoudOX4AM5FpioFmp3XUkecGAhfYjI3UK4gbgdMxTR48aZseb7xTJxpE7ePj960g60h278RFfh3UdlsELO/M/FbmAfMIw5x6k89jIc4Ta+Wu9kUNkBXktzZVrUiCH6A==; 24:kGHGO76XV70NCDMDR43JNOG+0i3nnzFHK82gJweIC2vEUIYG+/zl5bpDpUgFn+TeCGtDKhtJjSWAc8MdT8z7+1qKnkoU2StajNtXs16YDHs=; 7:Npp+C6CTFHY3+3hlnB2F+KW8ZHPkZtjlTZ0DcqubP9ZZtpHqD1I+t3ESc9S5BFhIhqdk3GIigbcsanHKzNQYCqlbYmlCKewzY6LH/AxdoFh/kH18zu8utbLCZEaebBJsKG5a9ND2vuduIVAGBUuteXUfpaefMZDMOXQAJeWrvyxyiF9RdrrAJuYgoKjzOx43vNcWDv9SZOvhU7kzHM6KPyGuPsd0uAtR38iomSbamAc=
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 215cfc15-ae9f-4342-47a5-08d4ee011c40
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(300000500095)(300135000095)(300000501095)(300135300095)(22001)(300000502095)(300135100095)(2017030254152)(300000503095)(300135400095)(48565401081)(2017052603199)(49563074)(201703131423075)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(300000504095)(300135200095)(300000505095)(300135600095)(300000506095)(300135500095); SRVR:AM2PR07MB0627;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM2PR07MB0627:
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(158342451672863)(21748063052155);
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM2PR07MB0627DE59E554805FEAF1B356949E0@AM2PR07MB0627.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(102415395)(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(100000703101)(100105400095)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123562025)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123558100)(6072148)(201708071742011)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:AM2PR07MB0627; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:AM2PR07MB0627;
x-forefront-prvs: 0413C9F1ED
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(39860400002)(51874003)(199003)(189002)(105586002)(54896002)(6916009)(7696004)(106356001)(55016002)(99286003)(97736004)(2351001)(25786009)(9686003)(6306002)(6506006)(6436002)(101416001)(5640700003)(66066001)(8936002)(2906002)(2501003)(5250100002)(790700001)(6116002)(102836003)(5630700001)(3846002)(53936002)(3660700001)(5660300001)(1730700003)(3280700002)(68736007)(2900100001)(110136004)(230783001)(81166006)(81156014)(8676002)(33656002)(86362001)(14454004)(189998001)(74316002)(99936001)(7736002)(54356999)(50986999)(478600001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM2PR07MB0627; H:AM2PR07MB0627.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nokia.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0490_01D31FFA.BC496CD0"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nokia.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Aug 2017 10:39:50.1497 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM2PR07MB0627
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/0SeY6SLCEuxdoyA5YsrofDtSK-w>
Subject: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13 - section 4.26.2
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 28 Aug 2017 10:39:55 -0000

I would like to understand why the YANG 1.1 feature logic is *much more
expensive* than YANG 1.0.  As far as I can see the way YANG features are
being defined has not changed between YANG 1.0 and YANG 1.1.

 

On the other hand, the second paragraph of this section seems to deal with
"when" versus "if-feature" and the preference to use if-feature instead of
when, if possible.  But as far as I'm aware there are no changes w.r.t. when
between YANG 1.0 and YANG 1.1.  This paragraph seems to suggest that "when"
is worse than if-feature.  I can understand that when is to be evaluated and
depends on the when-condition while a feature can be considered as a design
and implementation choice (the feature is supported or not) and does not
need any run-time 'validation'.  But why is this so different in YANG 1.1
versus YANG 1.0?

 

Where can we find more background on the statement made in this section
about much more expensive and what exactly is meant by this, certainly when
we want to see this in the perspective of the run-time characteristics and
impact on a NC server running in a device.

 

Thanks in advance,

Bart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email