Re: [netmod] validating a YANG action

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Fri, 03 May 2019 08:11 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 AD3631200A0 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2019 01:11:13 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 gS8ZvnzgCZRn for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2019 01:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x232.google.com (mail-lj1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) (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 93D5A12004D for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2019 01:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x232.google.com with SMTP id t1so4479067lje.10 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 May 2019 01:11:11 -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; bh=dlaniv00kTfOjlb4YWTSYQTOJyQ6h4qe1yRs4VjzYl0=; b=MnKmyKF3VUN5Fr2eXMyEXK1cqJJ6KcXJHIezqvv6ANq+tEgSN9i4WOD/Sh3dQfwrZ8 0kQ75GaCFzhje+IoSddJpM6lyQ5WpFToATAaq4Rb8B9zQdcHtX/7CqSMElZ6NM1Q5A8k aPIaNB/MX0KlQLxAcbFmQTieIdJBMBNiksmyezghx1SYOy6xxayisGyAHNRiFGco2NJB LBrF8nTNcJlN2wcohDCdRBL5Q/2DdKnZ0bHveWqxBXsioOg0rKYin0w/6MHbc4BIGMVR LI5fyFJdmHdgPFLIPjwzhjUpH/de81JHWNcoaUuw6sb06Eh854b6vYnaKRbLbY+hgXC7 /hJQ==
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; bh=dlaniv00kTfOjlb4YWTSYQTOJyQ6h4qe1yRs4VjzYl0=; b=bNhG3fp2v1alSYR2mpkW/tCdZ4Viwo5KkYhVmL98duVpJceQ/1KEq0ZtN68NKnf6gD +YRVfeRS6DFzk08du/CeVLACsHbNYJtWc9ujmk/uRHfqHKYWmmpQ3dyMEsH8YwXB17V0 SJrhJIjpHexhNJ6oQSdT9Ou98u0dwTKarhCOzq9wuf7A0/oHRiUW30JO3mTaHMkM+mT+ ER1Lt69qLSDAF4azwDk184cwvpolrcxXKsWReeuI/razyqBd1kb00cADoB+3XnYVhYvL xTjNbHnUDTK+PRnwwhTuX9eY+fFK7pdtpT9NAAGbQV7Gj5bqwGOfztJp495a10yQ0eVm PFdg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUoqutB7Y7Ad+ZSDl3jEPyCtNTnb1B6PRMcclbWGQiAkjzVKCEt X7Zni2vjuZU/gSZgeTfyB8wL8b3myyaHlPnH2GbOuA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzMuhKUVc3zqleD3/9HOjUbUmdhbqu+S/DKntWRSml1ITS3W7eh7ipPqPq5Bht3WFWWhtXV59JvN1S1MhEwxwU=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9e4d:: with SMTP id g13mr4345160ljk.12.1556871069575; Fri, 03 May 2019 01:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABCOCHS-nwPfgF-NCNqp5tdS=G3Fz_9s7RkvGNvHbLVq=jYCsg@mail.gmail.com> <20190503055724.723voy7swdito3bv@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
In-Reply-To: <20190503055724.723voy7swdito3bv@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2019 01:10:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHThV5=re8-Mv8S0aLnFDrUoXvr_9nOgB2-zGoED+H2=oQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001044310587f74bd1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/3wesZ3tyj6Z5m2yxxdDgSsARK8s>
Subject: Re: [netmod] validating a YANG action
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: Fri, 03 May 2019 08:11:14 -0000

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 10:57 PM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:

> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 04:15:28PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The text about invoking actions in RFC 7950, sec. 7.15 is not clear
> > about whether the ancestor data nodes have to exist.
> >
> > sec 7.15.2, para 2:
> >
> >    The <action> element contains a hierarchy of nodes that identifies
> > the node in the datastore.
> >
> >
> > The RFC does not say anything about if the data node is required to
> > exist or not.  There is no distinction between NP-container, P-container,
> > or list which are ancestors of the action node. It does not specify
> > which datastore, and that is not supplied in the <action> RPC.
> > The text specifies what must be in the <rpc> request, not in any
> datastore
> > or state data.
> >
> > It seems like the intent is that no instance test is specified at all and
> > the corresponding ancestor nodes to the action node do not have to
> > exist for the action to be invoked. (The action may succeed or fail).
> > The issue is whether there is an existence-test before invoking the
> action.
>
> We discussed actions during the work on NMDA. RFC 8342 has this text
> in section 6, in particular 6.1 says:
>
>    Actions are always invoked in the context of the operational state
>    datastore.  The node for which the action is invoked MUST exist in
>    the operational state datastore.
>
>
This only applies to a server implementing NMDA.
There is no requirement for a server implementing RFC 7950 to make this
test.


> /js
>
>
Andy


> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>