Re: [netmod] Adoption Poll: draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02

Robert Wilton <> Wed, 07 February 2018 10:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45909126C19 for <>; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 02:38:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KcqN1ddeQYRz for <>; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 02:37:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3625C124D6C for <>; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 02:37:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=6732; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1517999878; x=1519209478; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=qNrrPTeJBDsruOpk4Gh9L2XvpRPw5ZqfXSMtZoDOO5U=; b=dMZ6Jm1biFUA7wf1IW+Kd9O5aYE67YSzGrSDtmcb1n/bcUlMUnObrKnV +PdEUQlEMHcL3m4xn/8SJM9oicjEcZKuhcEZn8oR6+Z8YPd4RRrB0F8eW tigGhzhx8w7F+arXznzCPrOD1ruAKoCwIL4m2+RteQPFKkJmd2QkDhe/q g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,473,1511827200"; d="scan'208,217";a="1914472"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Feb 2018 10:37:56 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w17AbtS0017283; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:37:56 GMT
To: joel jaeggli <>, NETMOD Working Group <>
References: <>
From: Robert Wilton <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 10:37:55 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------8D733B936FFAB4B19429B2F8"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Adoption Poll: draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 10:38:01 -0000


I conditionally support WG adoption of this draft, with the condition 
being that I think that there are technical areas of this draft that 
should be changed (I've mentioned these previously).

My interpretation of the approach currently documented in the draft 
assumes that the tags are treated as a special type of configuration 
that don't quite adhere to normal configuration rules.  In particular, 
the approach assumes that the server will pre-populate the running 
configuration with the server default tags.  A client can then fetch and 
modify these and push them back to the server.  However, I think that 
this approach will both bloat the configuration and violates the 
principal that the contents of the configuration should be owned by the 
client, not the server.  And probably raise various other corner case 
conditions as well (e.g. what do you do if the server software is 
upgraded and the tags change? how do you merge the current client and 
new server defaults together?)

Instead, I think that the tags should make use of the NMDA architecture 
and be treated entirely as regular configuration:
- <operational> would always report the current set of tags in effect 
(system default values, overridden by any tags add/removed/modified via 
- <running> would only contain any configured changes to the tags 
(additional tags could be added, or existing tags could be marked as 
being changed or deleted).
- No reset IPC is required, since it is just regular configuration.

I think that the draft should also support NMDA by augmenting YANG 
library bis.


On 06/02/2018 23:47, joel jaeggli wrote:
> Hi,
> This is the start of a *two* week poll on making 
> draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02 a working group document.
> This document was most recently discussed at IETF 100.
> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not 
> support".  If indicating no, please state your reservations with the 
> document.  If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd 
> like to see addressed once the document is a WG document.
> This poll ends on February 8.
> Thank you!
> Joel Jaeggli and IETF NETMOD Co-Chairs
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list