Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> Thanks.
> Only kept the relevant excerpts.
> >
> >> - Some objects are read-write in RFC6933:
> >>        entPhysicalSerialNum
> >>        entPhysicalAlias
> >>        entPhysicalAssetID
> >>        entPhysicalUris
> >>
> >> For example, entPhysicalSerialNum being read-write always bothered me.
> >> serial-num is now "config false", which is a good news IMO.
> > Actually, this was not the intention.  In draft-ietf-netmod-entity-03
> > this is configurable.  I missed this in the conversion to NMDA.
> Ah. So no good news in this case...
> >
> >> In the reverse direction, entPhysicalMfgName is read-only in RFC6933,
> >> while it's "config true" in draft-ietf-netmod-entity
> > Yes, this was added per request from the WG.  See e.g. the thread
> > "draft-ietf-netmod-entity issue #13".
> Sure. It was mainly an observation.
> >
> > However, I think that what we have now is probably not correct.  I
> > think that all nodes 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name' should
> > be config true, and the description of list 'component' updated to
> > reflect that all these tree leafs are handled the same way.
> >
> > I would like to know what the WG thinks about this.
> Talking as a contributor this time.
> It seems that inventory management is kind of broken when someone can
> change 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name.

They can't really change them.  The configured values are only used
(i.e. visible in the operational state) if the device cannot detect
them automatically.  I.e., they work as "post-it" notes only.


/martin