Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root?
Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> Tue, 05 May 2020 09:00 UTC
Return-Path: <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
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 10F543A15DE for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2020 02:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.923
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.923 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, PDS_NAKED_TO_NUMERO=1.177, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=4668.se header.b=jikdSDBT; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=VFpyHz2P
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 YW5MyE48hiuZ for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2020 02:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 626843A041A for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2020 02:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B48B85C003F; Tue, 5 May 2020 05:00:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 05 May 2020 05:00:14 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=4668.se; h=date :message-id:to:cc:subject:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm1; bh= zJ2XqKOQ9tmeo9j4DcoopQrqmMhKMPsqxCZOnmtGUUw=; b=jikdSDBTAUvOH0pJ obac5LQrVwVq+nQv5lBpRQVQG5/KYxbEdo9CBoPbooosqS2XwHnaq8p3MSnkxajx p8xZv1Fqm2goO0eVJOL4VPWquBLpiluSNSYzx3m4So8nLfxnpGf7bUhLWqYC9TM5 uDY/w3hyTguvMP3+xf37J8T3eAEGeO6NKuPBrNlWyDU/p+XJWCtyb50IW7qZsPPC kcZ0D9kol2TXQisK5HYBwNfN9RlSr0ms1H43ywJYmIeD9kU80AkIOLS8IkukT2IR LJOX36mcgc1D/dtqzL/bfjdcRpooTFMakfrXJC7bJAshkGB6oNA7J9rnFa4WaWsc tiwytg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=zJ2XqKOQ9tmeo9j4DcoopQrqmMhKMPsqxCZOnmtGU Uw=; b=VFpyHz2P2aKy65+Mvgcggdp4zeZcbojPqfbOESHWItly+/GzJFrOr4NFT MpWMFdirxWu9TTRaVY1jT97qiaYUuph1qZG3PZFb3Z9RyMexPXgGRKUvsbO+07pj A/lS9/s6LYEyYhKaEuMEo9FMEDwO+BrUG53iBaTDtPDAL1NHb2RmXhhiWoAe41ub 9ZVJCwfQ789vohFs/QchGZJ1JW/X3CuS+TQtNCrbZ0cVoHOFQv7oK/oNKdu2tM1b 9bYDb6NjuuQdC92Nl82UXXOAK5GbvYjIQ0wepnhQh7unqpvnIVffc83Kvq/0B/Xu y5aRg4aqa8q7UdZZI4UcgzOrLdEFg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:HSuxXu7s7_uKKyBkdhw6nhX10m2QydlwADVDSP25Gc8nggxsFwKNtw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrjeeigddtlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffkvffuhfgjfhfogggtgfesthgsre dtredtjeenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhtihhnuceujhpnrhhklhhunhguuceomhgsjhdoihgv thhfseegieeikedrshgvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefheekgfdukeefheeihefhke egvdffheetvefgfeefgefhvdefueeluddvvdfgheenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhfrdho rhhgnecukfhppeduheekrddujeegrdegrdeggeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmsghjodhivghtfhesgeeiieekrdhsvg
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:HSuxXv5U4YSTVFt3Rt5a2YzW5nMgPxFLtoVRpci0MkIuiiPMzN--MQ> <xmx:HSuxXuE5Mtbt4D1bf4dSyiwTjJae2wQnBds8HwSCCdbJx_yCZGaNHg> <xmx:HSuxXqv9u2mrQWVwp9TFwcvjcf4DtTbUGmsR4Oksm-F3qUVvaDTkMw> <xmx:HiuxXiEXYSdKUmTD8W8pw8lj3Bgb0ENEtdnoGEv-WqreET_gXqyAUg>
Received: from localhost (unknown [158.174.4.44]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 658283065FE4; Tue, 5 May 2020 05:00:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 11:00:11 +0200
Message-Id: <20200505.110011.1423220937314479731.id@4668.se>
To: chopps@chopps.org
Cc: jason.sterne@nokia.com, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
In-Reply-To: <0533F71D-C017-40A5-B953-21FFF9CBD1FB@chopps.org>
References: <AE95765B-0561-45DC-A4A8-E8B3BCE4BB12@cisco.com> <DM5PR08MB263359FB2993EC569444A4539BAA0@DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <0533F71D-C017-40A5-B953-21FFF9CBD1FB@chopps.org>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 25.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/3VEmfpW8Dh2WJdpcmJeOf611eJA>
Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root?
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: Tue, 05 May 2020 09:00:22 -0000
Hi, If we were to redo YANG, I would prefer to have a single statement "operation", either on the top-level, or tied to a node. /martin Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> wrote: > An action is defined as being something bound to a node. Talking about > actions that aren't bound to a node is talking about RPCs AFAICT. In > the server it just comes down to passing the bound node data in to the > function or not. Defining "unbound actions" to replace RPCs is just > different syntax for the same thing, right? Having 2 ways to do the > same thing wouldn't help make servers easier to implement (it would do > the opposite actually). > > Thanks, > Chris. > > > On Apr 30, 2020, at 11:50 AM, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) > > <jason.sterne@nokia.com> wrote: > > > > Yes - the intent was to address the limitation that an RPC can only be > > at root. Actions can be out in a tree & nicely associated with > > something (e.g. instead of having a pile of flat RPCs with long names > > that encode containers like reset-www-xxx-yyy-zzz-entity). > > > > But I don't really understand why we limited actions from being at the > > root. It prevents a strategy of implementing all operations in a > > server (some of which may be desirable at root for various reasons, > > some of which may be desirable in the tree) as actions. > > > > Why not allow this? > > > > module bar { > > action do-stuff { > > input { > > leaf iterations { > > type uint8; > > } > > } > > } > > } > > } > > > > Which could be called from NETCONF like this: > > > > <rpc message-id="101" > > xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1..0"> > > <action xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:1"> > > <do-stuff xmlns="urn:example:bar"> > > <iterations>5</iterations> > > </do-stuff> > > </action> > > </rpc> > > > > > > Jason > > > > From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com> > > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 11:31 AM > > To: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <jason.sterne@nokia.com>; > > netmod@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? > > > > I don’t know the history on this but the intent is to have action tied > > to a data node. > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.15 > > The difference between an action and an rpc is that an action is tied > > to a node in the datastore, whereas an rpc is not. When an action is > > invoked, the node in the datastore is specified along with the name > > of the action and the input parameters. > > > > Regards, > > Reshad. > > > > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Sterne, Jason > > (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com> > > Date: Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 11:08 AM > > To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org> > > Subject: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? > > > > Hi all, > > > > I was a bit surprised to find this in section 7.15 of 7950 recently: > > > > Since an action cannot be defined at the top level of a module or in > > a "case" statement, it is an error if a grouping that contains an > > action at the top of its node hierarchy is used at the top level of a > > module or in a case definition. > > > > I realize that actions can be placed down in a schema tree (i.e. sit > > in the context of a container or list), but why is it phrased that > > they *must* be in a container? > > > > RPCs are limited to being at the root. I would have thought actions > > could be anywhere (root or down in the tree). > > > > Jason > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > netmod@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
- [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? Christian Hopps
- Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? Robert Varga
- Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? Per Hedeland
- Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? Per Hedeland
- Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? Martin Björklund
- Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root? Juergen Schoenwaelder