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

Vladimir Vassilev <vladimir@transpacket.com> Thu, 08 February 2018 00:41 UTC

Return-Path: <vladimir@transpacket.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 B7528126CF9 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:41:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 xhFY2GyF4ToD for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:41:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.transpacket.com (s91205186171.blix.com [91.205.186.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52028124207 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 16:41:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.transpacket.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9389814E15F7; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 01:41:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail.transpacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.transpacket.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id DmWh4MnQNnQq; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 01:41:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.transpacket.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF1E14E15F8; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 01:41:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail.transpacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.transpacket.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id Bofw2MXD3jWb; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 01:41:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.43.32] (77.18.48.72.tmi.telenormobil.no [77.18.48.72]) by mail.transpacket.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 30E3114E15EC; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 01:41:21 +0100 (CET)
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, phil@juniper.net
References: <CABCOCHQeganL9z8+QRbRvc-Y_jwVc7ZD0+-rd1yp4rhJfP-Kdg@mail.gmail.com> <201802071859.w17IxjwU073675@idle.juniper.net> <CABCOCHSXGCAPQxxF7N-Bp=hx-ntRSgCzR-pbaebO6cBeYrJjrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
From: Vladimir Vassilev <vladimir@transpacket.com>
Message-ID: <39f4e20a-0147-a419-c0f3-6da2a6ee659a@transpacket.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 01:41:20 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHSXGCAPQxxF7N-Bp=hx-ntRSgCzR-pbaebO6cBeYrJjrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: nb
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/5IaU7QcDxkjlENNgOQpmzYaooOw>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Adoption Poll: draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02
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, 08 Feb 2018 00:41:28 -0000

On 02/07/2018 11:02 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Many good points.
> IMO it will be difficult to agree on the details of this draft
> without agreeing on the problem statement first.
> As a process issue, this seems like an important step.
+1
> It is usually handled with WG charter text, but NETMOD
> has a free pass on new YANG modules somehow.
>
> I am interested in these tags as a new type of standard selection filter.
> It can be applied to data retrieval, NACM rules, YANG push subtree 
> selection,
> and probably many more use-cases.  So the problem statement
> might be:
>
>    There is a need for standardized mechanisms to classify YANG data 
> nodes with tags,
>    which can be used in protocol operations to select matching data 
> nodes, based on tag values.
>    This work includes the management and assignment of tags, and their 
> generalized use
>    within protocol operations.
A practical usecase example in addition to this text could really help. 
I suspect Phil is right that "the authors
have more in their heads than they've put into the draft" but even with 
this text an example is needed to illistrate the purpose of this work.

Vladimir
>
>
> Andy
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net 
> <mailto:phil@juniper.net>> wrote:
>
>     Andy Bierman writes:
>     >The draft avoids discussion of any useful operations based on tags.
>
>     Nor does it really clearly say "what" is being tagged. The absract
>     talks about "used to help classify and organize modules", but the
>     Introduction lacks any expansion on this.  There's really no clear
>     problem statement or a clear definition of why we need tags or what
>     one would use them for.
>
>     It would also be helpful to understand why "#hashtag" and the string
>     format ("ietf:routing", "vendor:super-duper:...") are chosen over
>     YANG identities.  It seems like identity naming standards and
>     inheritance
>     would be good features.
>
>     Also it's not clear why these would be configurable rather that
>     controlled by the module author.  I'd rather have the OAM standard
>     YANG module say something like:
>
>         module ietf-oam {
>             import "ietf-category" { prefix ietf-category; }
>
>             identify ietf-oam {
>                 base ietf-category:ietf-standard;
>                 description "This module category represents something
>                              OAM related.";
>             }
>
>             ietf-category:module-category ietf-oam;
>             ...
>         }
>
>     The draft says:
>
>        Implementations that do not support the reset rpc statement
>     (whether
>        at all, or just for a particular rpc or module) MUST respond
>     with an
>        YANG transport protocol-appropriate rpc layer error when such a
>        statement is received.
>
>     The entire idea of NETCONF/YANG is that the client _knows_ what it
>     can safely send instead of tossing spaghetti at the wall until
>     something sticks.  Avoid programming-by-error-detection, which
>     creates fragile infrastructure.
>
>     Use "feature" to control optional portions of a YANG module.  I'd
>     suggest one feature for "reset" support and another for "read-only",
>     since IMHO the idea of someone munging the categories of standard
>     modules is, well, disconcerting.
>
>     "Local" tags are not well explained.  The idea of a user/admin
>     tagging modules means that something is broken.  Users shouldn't
>     understand YANG modules.  Users use applications, some of which are
>     home-grown.  Is "local" appropriate for my "audit interfaces" script?
>
>     6.1 is missing the list "module-tags".
>
>     9.1 advocates putting vital information in the description string,
>     which is IMHO not a good idea.  We want to put as much information
>     in machine-readable format as possible, so I can ask ietf.org
>     <http://ietf.org>
>     questions like "give me a list of ietf-oam-related yang modules"
>     and get a nice list.
>
>     It also talks about "SHOULD" and "MAY" tags without giving any
>     clue as to why or when this would be appropriate or useful.
>
>     So my vote would be that this document needs some significant work
>     and expansion before it's a supportable draft.  I think the authors
>     have more in their heads than they've put into the draft and I'd
>     like to see the rest of their thoughts.
>
>     Thanks,
>      Phil
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod