Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00

[Vladimir Vassilev <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 12/13/2017 03:47 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for reporting this.  I'll add the missing origin.  But why did
> you think forwarding and mtu should be removed?
1. IMO since <mtu> is not present in the <ipv4> container in the 
Appendix A (<get-config>) example and does not have default value in the 
model I still think it should be removed.
>    In fact, I think I
> missed <enabled>,
2. IMO both fixes adding <enabled> or removing <forwarding> should be OK 
depending on the RFC6243 defined with-defaults capability 'basic-mode' 
parameter advertised by the server. I was running the example with 
basic-mode=explicit

Vladimir

>   so here's my diff:
>
> --- ex-get-data-reply.xml
> +++ ex-get-data-reply.xml
> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
>           <!-- other parameters from ietf-interfaces omitted -->
>   
>           <ipv4 xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip">
> +          <enabled>true</enabled>
>             <forwarding>false</forwarding>
>             <mtu>1500</mtu>
>             <address>
> @@ -20,12 +21,13 @@
>               <prefix-length>24</prefix-length>
>               <origin>static</origin>
>             </address>
> -          <neighbor>
> +          <neighbor or:origin="or:learned">
>               <ip>192.0.2.2</ip>
>               <link-layer-address><!-- PPL -->00:01:02:03:04:05</link-layer-address>
>             </neighbor>
>           </ipv4>
>           <ipv6 xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip">
> +          <enabled>true</enabled>
>             <forwarding>false</forwarding>
>             <mtu>1280</mtu>
>             <address>
>
>
>
> /martin
>
>
>
> Vladimir Vassilev <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> The previous post was intended for the rfc7223bis Last Call (wrong
>> subject line).
>>
>> I just completed similar validation through a testcase for the
>> examples in rfc7277bis ("Appendix A.  Example: NETCONF <get-config>
>> reply" and "Appendix B.  Example: NETCONF <get-data> Reply")
>>
>> Here there are some inconsistencies between the <get-config> output
>> and the expected <get-data> output. A missing origin bug is probably
>> more significant then the rest. The following patch fixes the
>> inconsistencies and the testcase passes:
>>
>> --- before.txt    2017-12-12 20:39:09.037576425 +0100
>> +++ after.txt    2017-12-12 20:37:46.425656680 +0100
>> @@ -7,14 +7,12 @@
>>              <type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</type>
>>              <!-- other parameters from ietf-interfaces omitted -->
>>              <ipv4 xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip">
>> -             <forwarding>false</forwarding>
>> -             <mtu>1500</mtu>
>>                <address>
>>                  <ip>192.0.2.1</ip>
>>                  <prefix-length>24</prefix-length>
>>                  <origin>static</origin>
>>                </address>
>> -             <neighbor>
>> +             <neighbor or:origin="or:learned">
>>                  <ip>192.0.2.2</ip>
>>                  <link-layer-address>
>>                    00:01:02:03:04:05
>> @@ -22,7 +20,6 @@
>>                </neighbor>
>>              </ipv4>
>>              <ipv6 xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip">
>> -             <forwarding>false</forwarding>
>>                <mtu>1280</mtu>
>>                <address>
>>                  <ip>2001:db8::10</ip>
>>
>>
>> In contrast to rfc7223bis-00 I have not reviewed rfc7277bis-00 and
>> this is only a report of a detected issue.
>>
>> Vladimir
>>
>> On 12/11/2017 05:35 PM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication.
>>>
>>> The focus of my review this time was on validating the module and the
>>> example modules and example data through running code. I implemented
>>> NMDA for the open source tools we use and added a testcase that
>>> reproduces the result specified in "Appendix E. Example: NETCONF
>>> <get-data> Reply" after loading the configuration specified in
>>> "Appendix D.  Example: NETCONF <get-config> Reply" and providing the
>>> config false; data and system originated configuration as needed. I
>>> can confirm the implementation validated the example modules and the
>>> example data producing identical output.
>>>
>>> IMO the examples are demonstrating well the concept of NMDA and its
>>> application for the ietf-interfaces module.
>>>
>>> I had an issue with a bug in [e-mail] I
>>> had to fix in order to use the <get-data> RPC. The bug is already
>>> reported on the mailing-list.
>>>
>>> diff ietf-patched/[e-mail]
>>> ietf-draft/[e-mail]
>>> 140c140
>>> <         when 'derived-from-or-self(../datastore, "ds:operational")';
>>> ---
>>>>          when 'derived-from-or-self(../datastore, "or:operational")';
>>> Vladimir
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/28/2017 08:29 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> This starts a two-week working group last call on
>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00.
>>>>
>>>> Please recall that this update's intention is to
>>>> modify the YANG module to be in line with the NMDA
>>>> guidelines [1].  Reviewing the diff between the two
>>>> drafts [2] should reveal just this.
>>>>
>>>> The working group last call ends on December 12.
>>>> Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
>>>>
>>>> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document
>>>> and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
>>>> This is useful and important, even from authors.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01
>>>> [2]
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00.txt
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Netmod Chairs
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod