Re: [netmod] *one* week 2nd WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-07

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Thu, 21 December 2017 16:05 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 E629E126D74; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:05:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 yo8H3powxgjZ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB21126CD6; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:05:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (h-85-209.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [94.254.85.209]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B372C1AE0311; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 17:05:30 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 17:05:30 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20171221.170530.2292499981096143243.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: lhotka@nic.cz
Cc: andy@yumaworks.com, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <1513872201.18003.1.camel@nic.cz>
References: <87d138kz4k.fsf@nic.cz> <20171221.142505.234244118393393232.mbj@tail-f.com> <1513872201.18003.1.camel@nic.cz>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/4M5ftrOXFo2ULkaNwseDlGj8374>
Subject: Re: [netmod] *one* week 2nd WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-07
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, 21 Dec 2017 16:05:34 -0000

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-12-21 at 14:25 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:
> > > Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> writes:
> > > 
> > > > Hi Andy,
> > > >
> > > > Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote:
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >> 
> > > >> I have reviewed draft-07 and my previous comments about NMDA have been
> > > >> addressed.
> > > >> 
> > > >> This might be the most important sentence in the draft:
> > > >> 
> > > >> sec. 5.3
> > > >> 
> > > >>    The datastore schema for <operational> MUST be a superset of the
> > > >>    combined datastore schema used in all configuration datastores except
> > > >>    that YANG nodes supported in a configuration datastore MAY be omitted
> > > >>    from <operational> if a server is not able to accurately report them.
> > > >> 
> > > >> The MUST implies that there is no need to design a YANG library that can
> > > >> support
> > > >> an implementation that violates this MUST (i.e., 1 schema tree for the
> > > >> super-set)
> > > >> 
> > > >> The MAY is troublesome because it completely contradicts the conformance
> > > >> expressed
> > > >> in each YANG module supported by the server.  Any data node without any
> > > >> if-feature-stmts is mandatory to implement.
> > > >
> > > > This is required for transition purposes; a server that wants to
> > > > implement <operational> should not have to implement all modules at
> > > > once (as applied config).
> > > >
> > > >> What about config=false subtrees within a config=true subtree?
> > > >> Can they be omitted from <operational> as well, or does the draft just
> > > >> intend to
> > > >> omit the operational value of config=true nodes?  Should be specific.
> > > >
> > > > The text says "nodes supported in a configuration datastore MAY be
> > > > omitted from <operational>".  So it is implicit that it only applies
> > > > to config true nodes (since config false cannot be supported in a
> > > > config ds).  How about:
> > > >
> > > > OLD:
> > > >
> > > >     The datastore schema for <operational> MUST be a superset of the
> > > >     combined datastore schema used in all configuration datastores except
> > > >     that YANG nodes supported in a configuration datastore MAY be omitted
> > > >     from <operational> if a server is not able to accurately report them.
> > > >
> > > > NEW:
> > > >
> > > >     The datastore schema for <operational> MUST be a superset of the
> > > >     combined datastore schema used in all configuration datastores
> > > >     except that YANG "config true" nodes supported in a configuration
> > > 
> > > If this is about schema or data nodes, I suggest to state it
> > > explicitly:
> > > 
> > >     ... "config true" schema/data nodes ...
> > 
> > Yes, the new text uses "configuration data nodes".
> > 
> > > >     datastore MAY be omitted from <operational> if a server is not
> > > >     able to accurately report them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> Perhaps this draft does not need the MAY half of the sentence at all.
> > > >> The YANG library can specify that it is for conformance-reporting, not
> > > >> conformance-defining.
> > > >
> > > > I think we should keep the MAY, since the YANG library has to be
> > > > designed to support this case.
> > > 
> > > Shouldn't the server add corresponding deviations to the schema for
> > > <operational> in this case?
> > 
> > We wanted to explicitly support the case that a server doesn't (yet)
> > implement a given module with config nodes in operational.  But maybe
> 
> But with the new schema of YANG library, say Alt B, such a server can simply
> omit this module from the schema of <operational>, right?

Right; note that this document specifies the requirements, and yang
library is designed accordingly.


/martin


> 
> Lada
> 
> > we should design for the future and remove the MAY half of the
> > sentence, as suggested above, and let such servers use deviations in
> > this case.
> > 
> > 
> > /martin
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Lada
> > > 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > /martin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> Andy
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
> > > >> 
> > > >> > All,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This starts a second working group last call on
> > > >> > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > As this is a 2nd LC that is focused on changes since the last LC, it
> > > >> > closes in *one* week. The working group last call ends on December 11.
> > > >> > Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > At this point, we're most interested in verifying that previous
> > comments
> > > >> > are addressed since the last call on the -04 rev of the draft was held.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > A summary of changes can be found at
> > > >> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/DWtD12bGkBZabEygRfiwZfcnUU
> > 4
> > > >> >
> > > >> > A diff can be found at
> > > >> > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url1=draft-ietf-netmod
> > -
> > > >> > revised-datastores-04.txt&url2=draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-
> > 07.txt
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Comments along the of: I have reviewed this version of the document and
> > it
> > > >> > addresses my previous comments would be particularly helpful.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thank you,
> > > >> > Netmod Chairs
> > > >> >
> > > >> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > 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
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Ladislav Lhotka
> > > Head, CZ.NIC Labs
> > > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
> > > 
> -- 
> Ladislav Lhotka
> Head, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>