[netmod] Module tags [Re: Augmenting an unimplemented module]

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Wed, 08 February 2017 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 4CFB21295D2 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:34:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 n8J4oLCxiaeL for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:34:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0601294AA for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:29:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tops.chopps.org (97-83-46-222.dhcp.trcy.mi.charter.com [97.83.46.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9013C623D9; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:29:11 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.19; emacs 25.1.1
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 16:29:10 -0500
Message-ID: <87shnogymx.fsf@chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/4tYUemx_DCi_hqZjwoskqBOcLn8>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: [netmod] Module tags [Re: Augmenting an unimplemented module]
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 21:34:42 -0000

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> writes:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:22:01PM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
>> >
>> > The tags in the library and the tags in a module are updated at the same
>> > time and represent logically the same list of tags. Its clear this
>> > happens with an RPC. It seems a lot less clear this would (or should)
>> > happen if one edited only once location.
>>
>> I am not convinced by the design. We have lots of other resources
>> where we have configured and system determined values. I do not see
>> that tags are any different.
>
> I agree.  *If* you want a config true datastructure, it should be
> modified with the normal edit operations, not special RPCs.  There are
> several reasons for this.  For example, how would your new RPCs interact
> with locks?  With candidate?  With startup?

The point of already existing mechanisms and locks is somewhat
compelling. Although this data is not very dynamic so it's hard to
imagine locks coming into play, but the point is still taken.

So if the user changes the tags on a module using the module path can we
just indicate that it would automatically also update in the yang
library list? We use a grouping that gets stamped inside a module and
then we have another module define the yang library notation would we
simply define the semantics in text and outside of yang? It's easy for
the module grouping to refer to the yang library but the reverse is not
true.

> Also I am not sure it is a good idea to add configuration meta-data
> that really should be common across all modules into the modules
> themselves.  Another approach is to keep a separate list with the
> tags, indexed by modulename and revision.

I don't understand what your getting at here. Are you referring to the
grouping that gets used by a module author inside their module? The tags
set for a given module are specific to that module only.

Thanks,
Chris.

> /martin