Re: [netmod] Does defining a feature require the module be implemented?

Michal Vasko <mvasko@cesnet.cz> Tue, 10 May 2022 06:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mvasko@cesnet.cz>
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 7EE88C157B44 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2022 23:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.956
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.956 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.857, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cesnet.cz
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3pU_8TBH4Sfn for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2022 23:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from office2.cesnet.cz (office2.cesnet.cz [195.113.144.244]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2956BC157B41 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 May 2022 23:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPV6:2001:67c:1220:80c:f6:4a3a:d717:4a09] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:1220:80c:f6:4a3a:d717:4a09]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by office2.cesnet.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D95CA40006B; Tue, 10 May 2022 08:01:35 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cesnet.cz; s=office2-2020; t=1652162495; bh=yagbxlqoGp3DkLOPBzMV5qpnyatCEWoECHi99c1wViU=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=aAu25tT45s0F5ESvrC6I6Go6jo4qAoKduD8QIwFvWrghDe6qnwxjM5w0VfB7GUu90 nT4758lmPoNW6dSVTX8KHic77s67F9Qm8qs4omg0sAJtwj7sDOLKHm5jwXAIm0YZSM CIhVuulrXUZ7uRLVRNhK+qwUpvKJUF5uZM6U3CJ9zH5kn6PEBUVj6czsJyLuRdZek6 dQ4IxY9s4jU4qifcDkZTh8aISw1QYbtX/WzQ2DmB1jN/22430pdwwfllBa4t4KsaBO xfMa+xdmiAsCRN1e+MgivbP1j9ETiqjCjeek7B5ohO3hmYR3HmrQe4pQUNH4rH0LlK RkjKFJEAV5QpQ==
Message-ID: <9ba4be2a-a9f4-8940-d470-efa385a2cb52@cesnet.cz>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 08:01:35 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <01000180a9eb37cb-85b9c576-c1eb-425a-b42c-b3cabe548fbb-000000@email.amazonses.com>
From: Michal Vasko <mvasko@cesnet.cz>
In-Reply-To: <01000180a9eb37cb-85b9c576-c1eb-425a-b42c-b3cabe548fbb-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms000909060708090309090405"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/7jP7v9RAcv53g5aweCH9pU1-7PQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Does defining a feature require the module be implemented?
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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, 10 May 2022 06:01:44 -0000

Hi,

I would just like to explicitly mention that the current YANG library 
does not allow to report features for non-implemented modules and the 
feature list is in a grouping called 
`module-implementation-parameters`[1] so it would seem the authors of 
that RFC thought one must implement a module to enable its features.

Regards,
Michal

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8525#page-11

On 9. 5. 2022 19:43, Kent Watsen wrote:
> YANG Doctors,
>
>
> Does "foo" need to be "implemented", in order for its feature to be define?
>
> 	module foo {
> 	  yang-version 1.1;
> 	  namespace "https://example.net/foo";
> 	  prefix "f";
>
> 	  feature foo-feature;
>
>            ...
> 	}
>
>
> Specifically, using  the previous YANG Library (RFC 7895), would this be possible:
>
>        {
>          "name": "foo",
>          "feature": [
>            "foo-feature"
>          ],
>          "namespace": "https://example.net/foo",
>          "conformance-type": "import"
>        },
>
>
> Or does "foo" also need to be "implemented", in order for its feature to be defined?
>
>
> PS: the answer to this impacts the "crypto-types and friends" drafts in the NETCONF WG, where it is assumed (and various tools agreed, sans a recent change in `yanglint`) that the implementation-status of a module is orthogonal to what features supported.
>
> Thanks,
> Kent
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod