Re: [netmod] choice/case in tree diagrams

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

On 3/6/2018 10:44 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After thinking some more about this, realizing that this document is
> in AUTH48, and looking at the first sentence in the Abstract:
>
>     This document captures the current syntax used in YANG module tree
>     diagrams.
>
> I have reached the conclusion that we probably shouldn't make any
> drastic changes.
Obviously, otherwise I send the document back to the WG.

Regards, Benoit
>
> The current syntax, with flags for choice but not for case, may look a
> bit odd, but it does follow RFC 7950 where a choice node can have a
> config property, but case cannot.  Also, this syntax has now been used
> for several years w/o causing much confusion.
>
> I suggest the following changes to this document:
>
> OLD:
>
>         <flags> is one of:
>           rw  for configuration data
>           ro  for non-configuration data, output parameters to rpcs
>               and actions, and notification parameters
>           -w  for input parameters to rpcs and actions
>           -u  for uses of a grouping
>           -x  for rpcs and actions
>           -n  for notifications
>           mp  for nodes containing a "mount-point" extension statement
>
> NEW:
>
>         <flags> is one of:
>           rw  for configuration data
>           ro  for non-configuration data, output parameters to rpcs
>               and actions, and notification parameters
>           -w  for input parameters to rpcs and actions
>           -u  for uses of a grouping
>           -x  for rpcs and actions
>           -n  for notifications
>           mp  for nodes containing a "mount-point" extension statement
>
>           case nodes do not have any <flags>.
>
> Then, since the syntax requires whitespace before <name>:
>
>       <status>--<flags> <name><opts> <type> <if-features>
>
> we need to fix the examples:
>
> OLD:
>
>               +--rw (root-type)
>                  +--:(vrf-root)
>
> NEW:
>
>               +--rw (root-type)
>                  +-- :(vrf-root)
>
> (two occurances)
>
>
>
> /martin
>
>
>
> Vladimir Vassilev <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 03/05/2018 06:40 PM, Per Hedeland wrote:
>>> On 2018-03-05 16:06, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 15:49 +0100, Per Hedeland wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-03-05 15:41, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 15:26 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>>>>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:54:18PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> So it seems the running code got it right. ;-)
>>>>>>>>> As the author of that code, I think that was purely by accident...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I'm not convinced it is the correct solution.  We have one example
>>>>>>>>> in the other thread where someone was confused by the "rw" flag and
>>>>>>>>> thought that it implied that the node would be present in the data
>>>>>>>>> tree.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what does rw mean?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (i)  The schema node has a rw property.
>>>>>>>> (ii) The schema node can be instantiated and the instantiated data
>>>>>>>> node
>>>>>>>>        has a rw property.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it is difficult to have both at the same time. If the tree is
>>>>>>>> a representation of schema nodes, then (i) seems to make more
>>>>>>>> sense. That said, the explanation in 2.6 is somewhat vague since it
>>>>>>>> says 'data' and not 'nodes' (like everywhere else):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>          <flags> is one of:
>>>>>>>>            rw  for configuration data
>>>>>>>>            ro  for non-configuration data, output parameters to rpcs
>>>>>>>>                and actions, and notification parameters
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>          <flags> is one of:
>>>>>>>>            rw  for configuration data nodes
>>>>>>>>            ro for non-configuration data nodes, output parameters to
>>>>>>>>            rpcs
>>>>>>>>                and actions, and notification parameters
>>>>>>> I think this is ok.  But that means that we also have to add:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              --  for a choice or case node
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But in order to be consistent, we should probably have:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              --  for a choice, case, input or output node
>>>>>> But unlike the three other statements, "choice" can have the config
>>>>>> substatement, so "rw/ro" makes sense there.
>>>>> I don't think so - that config statement does not a define a property
>>>>> of
>>>>> the choice node (it can obviously neither be read nor written), only a
>>>>> default for descendant data nodes, as described in section 7.21.1 of
>>>>> RFC
>>>>> 7950.
>>>> It is not a default - if a choice has "config false", then no
>>>> descendant can be
>>>> "config true". One of the benefits of having rw/ro in the ascii tree
>>>> is to see
>>>> where a state data subtree actually starts.
>>> It is a default, but yes, it is also a restriction in the specific
>>> case
>>> of the argument being "false" at a point where the default would
>>> otherwise be "true". And in that case it is equivalent to having
>>> "config
>>> false" on all the descendant data nodes, and they will of course be
>>> flagged as "ro" regardless of whether the "config false" comes from
>>> the
>>> choice or the individual data nodes - and that is where the state
>>> *data*
>>> suntree(s) actually start(s).
>>>
>>> So I guess the question then is whether this specific case motivates
>>> always having flags on specifically choice nodes, while the other
>>> non-data nodes have no flags. Since the 'config' statement is ignored
>>> in
>>> rpc/action input/output and notification, choice nodes there should
>>> then
>>> presumably have "-w"/"ro"/"-n". Personally I think the diagram is
>>> clearer with flags only on the data nodes.
>> When I think about it <flags> do not have any information contents
>> outside of the context of a data tree and its schema. So if we are
>> removing clutter we should probably start there by specifying that
>> <flags> should be ommited under rpc,notification and action.
>>
>> Vladlimir
>>> --Per
>>>
>>>> Lada
>>>>
>>>>> --Per
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lada
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This means that the correct tree syntax for choice and case will be:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        +-- (subnet)?
>>>>>>>           +-- :(prefix-length)
>>>>>>>           |  +--rw prefix-length?   uint8
>>>>>>>           +-- :(netmask)
>>>>>>>              +--rw netmask?         yang:dotted-quad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /martin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The document (as far as I searched for it) does not clearly say that
>>>>>>>> 'node' means 'schema node'. In hindsight, it might have been useful to
>>>>>>>> explicitely import terminology from RFC 7950 and to use it carefully
>>>>>>>> (RFC 7950 has 'schema node' and 'data node' but here we largely talk
>>>>>>>> about 'nodes' - and my assumption is that this means 'schema nodes'.)
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> .
>