Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root?

Per Hedeland <per@hedeland.org> Tue, 05 May 2020 10:06 UTC

Return-Path: <per@hedeland.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 A33FE3A1613 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2020 03:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 GR-w-cckySAn for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2020 03:06:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout.easydns.com (mailout.easydns.com [64.68.202.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9074C3A160E for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2020 03:06:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout.easydns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E203DA02A3; Tue, 5 May 2020 10:06:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mailout.easydns.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (emo13-pco.easydns.vpn [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GVgRXsgUue4V; Tue, 5 May 2020 10:06:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from hedeland.org (81-228-157-209-no289.tbcn.telia.com [81.228.157.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout.easydns.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B62EA018E; Tue, 5 May 2020 10:06:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pluto.hedeland.org (pluto.hedeland.org [10.1.1.5]) by tellus.hedeland.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 045A6YRI026963 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 5 May 2020 12:06:35 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from per@hedeland.org)
To: netmod@ietf.org
References: <AE95765B-0561-45DC-A4A8-E8B3BCE4BB12@cisco.com> <DM5PR08MB263359FB2993EC569444A4539BAA0@DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <0533F71D-C017-40A5-B953-21FFF9CBD1FB@chopps.org> <20200505.110011.1423220937314479731.id@4668.se> <f96eaddb-47f2-9f43-9e7f-5d60987adb27@hedeland.org> <20200505095510.gs454i4ubmbs6m5u@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
From: Per Hedeland <per@hedeland.org>
Message-ID: <7554d71a-256f-9b29-02e3-e2e7a3e0e474@hedeland.org>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 12:06:34 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200505095510.gs454i4ubmbs6m5u@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/70r3BA1gBOP73Xdl0VS8yxjZ6uQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root?
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 05 May 2020 10:06:41 -0000

On 2020-05-05 11:55, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 11:45:41AM +0200, Per Hedeland wrote:
>> On 2020-05-05 11:00, Martin Björklund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> If we were to redo YANG, I would prefer to have a single statement
>>> "operation", either on the top-level, or tied to a node.
>>
>> So, no rpc statement, and thereby no possibility to extend NETCONF
>> with new RPCs? (Or to be precise, YANG would extend NETCONF with
>> exactly one RPC, called "operation"?)
>>
>
> OLD
>
>   rpc foo {}
>   list something { action bar {} }
>
> NEW
>
>   operation foo {}
>   list something { operation bar {} }

Yes, that much is obvious, my question was really about the NETCONF
encoding.

> Syntactic sugar if you will.

So you're saying that the NETCONF encoding of "operation foo" at the
top level would be an RPC called "foo", while the NETCONF encoding of
"operation foo" elsewhere would be an RPC called "action"?

--Per