Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Thu, 07 September 2017 10:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 BFFB3132EDE; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 03:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 xavV1Y-IHhi7; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 03:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 825CF132396; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 03:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.41]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 63FF01AE0312; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 12:17:20 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 12:15:47 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20170907.121547.1207208093298972388.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: rwilton@cisco.com
Cc: andy@yumaworks.com, kwatsen@juniper.net, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <232e44d5-28b9-a017-ec10-54a597a66c7b@cisco.com>
References: <9cd0c109-6430-a649-66b1-8228c721538d@cisco.com> <20170907.120535.1715167966300628135.mbj@tail-f.com> <232e44d5-28b9-a017-ec10-54a597a66c7b@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/2VWNPxPdQEgq1KEp8JldM08Sg8M>
Subject: Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions
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: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 10:17:22 -0000

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 07/09/2017 11:05, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 07/09/2017 03:36, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net
> >>> <mailto:kwatsen@juniper.net>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>      >> /netconf-state and /restconf-state don't seem to follow the
> >>>      >> general
> >>>      >> pattern we're correcting with the various NMDA updates.
> >>>      Particularly,
> >>>      >> these -state trees are NOT for the purpose to providing the
> >>>      >> opstate
> >>>      >> value for configured nodes.  These modules have the misfortune of
> >>>      >> having "-state" in their name, but they're otherwise fine.
> >>>      >
> >>>      >
> >>>      > This contradicts some details we have been told about NMDA
> >>>      >
> >>>      > 1) the transition guidelines say otherwise
> >>>      >
> >>>      > New modules and modules that are not concerned with the
> >>>      > operational state of configuration information SHOULD
> >>>      > immediately be structured to be NMDA-compatible
> >>>
> >>>      Yes, I'm suggesting we give ourselves some leeway, by taking
> >>>      advantage of the SHOULD keyword above and defer updating these
> >>>      two modules to when it makes more sense to do so.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> OK -- good.
> >>> I think another sentence needs to be added.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> NMDA compatibility conversion MAY be deferred if the module
> >>> does not contain any configuration datastore objects.
> >> I agree.
> > +1
> >
> >
> >>>      > 2) RD defines operational state to include config=false nodes
> >>>      > such as counters, so these modules are properly named.
> >>>
> >>>      module-name == top-level node name.  Either way, my point is that
> >>>      the -state tree in these modules is not trying to provide the
> >>>      opstate value for configured nodes (i.e. applied configuration).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So a data node naming convention is needed?
> >>> And a module naming convention?
> >>>
> >>> We need a rule that says the suffix "-state" is reserved for NMDA
> >>> compatibility
> >>> so module names and data nodes SHOULD NOT be named with an identifier
> >>> that
> >>> ends in this suffix.
> >> Also agree.
> > -1
> >
> > There are cases where a -state suffix is natural, e.g. in
> > ietf-hardware we have admin-state, oper-state, usage-state etc.
> >
> > I prefer to have a recommendation that generated modules and top-level
> > nodes are called ...-state, but that should not be a reason for making
> > -state illegal in general.
> Sorry, it was specifically modules and top level data nodes that I
> think this restriction should apply to.

Even in this case I'd prefer to make a one-way recommendation.  Is
there a technical reason for not allowing a normal module or top-level
node be called ...-state?  IMO, *if* it is important to mark these
modules as being generated, we should use a formal way to convey this
information, not rely on a naming convention.  (i.e., use a YANG
extension in the module).


/martin