Re: [netmod] [Netconf] magic leaf 'type' in IETF interfaces

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Thu, 20 December 2018 00:57 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 CEDC7126F72; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:57:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 GF3eD7fIFO3R; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:57:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AB3A1294D0; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:57:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 35FFAA068949A; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:57:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:57:43 +0000
Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.172]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:57:40 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, Jan Lindblad <janl@tail-f.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] [netmod] magic leaf 'type' in IETF interfaces
Thread-Index: AQHUl8tEIaeGkfvXD0+KnC4oEKYl6aWGzJKQ
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:57:40 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9B1B55F5@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <VI1PR07MB39818BD20967B36B8F24DBA69BA10@VI1PR07MB3981.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <20181217.091505.218628572185200621.mbj@tail-f.com> <83b139a1-a0ab-5fbc-f702-7f0d50a46864@ericsson.com> <90DB3C3B-FD52-4903-81B0-93985E6F74FE@tail-f.com> <CABCOCHQc+kuNiw4guOsU5oRxnwZA0u7-sA5zHUKcERdqytaQpg@mail.gmail.com> <6912DD4C-4C4E-45E8-9F0E-D8D8139F83AE@tail-f.com> <875zvpeh5h.fsf@nic.cz> <CABCOCHSuRma0bqB8qZjim2Y=V1PDwuEzUMG0-t5VKMUH4FwaYg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHSuRma0bqB8qZjim2Y=V1PDwuEzUMG0-t5VKMUH4FwaYg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.33.244]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9B1B55F5nkgeml513mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/8HyIEOiSUDafyW7V4sjzKfi6v6E>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Netconf] magic leaf 'type' in IETF interfaces
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: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:57:49 -0000

发件人: Netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Andy Bierman
发送时间: 2018年12月20日 2:46
收件人: Jan Lindblad; Andy Bierman; netconf@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Netconf] [netmod] magic leaf 'type' in IETF interfaces



On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:16 AM Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz<mailto:lhotka@nic.cz>> wrote:
Jan Lindblad <janl@tail-f.com<mailto:janl@tail-f.com>> writes:

> Hi,
>>> While I agree with Martin, in our systems we have a number of places, where the system does create configuration in running, due to
>>>
>>> different levels of automation and autonomous algorithms kick-in
>>> the created config needs to be possible to be further modified by the operator
>>> the created config needs to be referenced from operator created config
>>> the created config is not always ephemeral, it might need to be part of backup/restore
>> This is only a sampling from "the list of excuses". I have heard many more. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, however.. If we want to build automation based on sound theory, clearly separating the orders from managers from a system's own operational view is key, IMO. Reliability, security, accountability are growing in importance, and they all play in this direction.
>>
>> We may not need to standardize rules to outlaw the above; the market will take care of that. What we need to ensure is that it is possible to be standards compliant without having to implement design excuses like these.
>>
>>
>> NMDA has a lot of room for proprietary mechanisms for converting <running> to <intended>.
>> Many times the features desired by engineers exceed the capabilities of YANG, such as
>> a dynamic default leaf.  YANG allows a simple constant, and no business logic to pick the default.
>> This is a very valid use of "server auto-magic".
>>
>> Maybe a future version of YANG can improve the client visibility into this "auto-magic"
>
> As you say, this is not uncommon. I usually recommend to leave out any
> default statement, and write in the description what happens if this
> leaf isn't set. The operator can then override the default by giving a
> value.

Anyway, this is not a case where the server writes something on its own
to a configuration datastore.


I don't think it is a problem if NMDA or non-NMDA servers write to <running>.
Just part of the complexity that is baked in -- NMDA does nothing to help the client know
why <running> is different than <intended> anyway.





[Qin]: I think it is important to make NMDA server can use existing operation to

   return the same results to Non-NMDA client with <rpc-reply> as non-NMDA server

   does. We call this Server Backwards-Compatibility in

   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-netconf-nmda-compatibility-00#section-2.3



>
> While some more advanced features for default values may be of some
> utility, the simplicity of YANG is also important. We don't want to
> make the YANG models -- the interface contracts -- the new place for
> all business logic.

Absolutely.

I am not proposing YANG needs a new default-stmt. There is a description-stmt
and vendors can add their own extensions to flag auto-magic data nodes.

Lada

>
> /jan


Andy

>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

--
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67