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

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 20 December 2017 15:00 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 D3E8A126C19 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 07:00:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 07LGmhsQWX1k for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 07:00:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F15F51252BA for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 07:00:22 -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 813331AE0388; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:00:20 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:00:20 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20171220.160020.956270997417344353.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: bclaise@cisco.com
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <fd46c4ab-5c43-1b61-2b00-ca71f13fc932@cisco.com>
References: <9e66674b-4c6b-94f4-5fb6-4013c390c5db@cisco.com> <20171220.143253.1584852195806955458.mbj@tail-f.com> <fd46c4ab-5c43-1b61-2b00-ca71f13fc932@cisco.com>
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/56IMrEOtqlIOwMdnyzui5SgqRkU>
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06
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: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:00:25 -0000

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> 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