Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-07
Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Fri, 05 March 2021 16:36 UTC
Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 B7DE93A27D2 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 08:36:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 1G5Q9JeA1K07 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 08:36:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16D803A27BE for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 08:36:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id r25so3511669ljk.11 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 08:35:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hUUB/S8SOJrf+x+O0JfuZEDDgk+jOPZ7TVW0CONWCMQ=; b=pinVNJ+4yntrBvW+Ei4RaEgYL6m3foTRQfcsrU2x0FHrQC8lHZ5REoDMDaHDaif35j vu2uI8PGJ/XU186juKVtIXtVWzDbYWbBdRmlDt1W2hGKe01+TTzmlw3boJS53WR8Ig6w 3B+u7Uv4z8fGVfaXGmtJ7PyeJUiE2yOHkdIkdafswCdlFr2W0i0X9dYoIPBT7uUe+4P3 /Og2+y6uG/ikSvRryIEfWJfR4QBbXBmQIlz3Q4Sr6MplMTeI+hRbwaZMFDzAceMuQEft xvlNqXM9liOkZFHGie7HbeI4m/BHQmN7Fvpj6xKUBCHSJvK+o9Dyw47I7IQRRAKq/Ngo PEQQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hUUB/S8SOJrf+x+O0JfuZEDDgk+jOPZ7TVW0CONWCMQ=; b=moQo7S5TPd7ZPmQpDKjJ6yZ8tg5/aFBYHnE4RxcVkTWjpL+69J6R8Kr0301abyAhep MSaAQIhUNZvBULi89kJlK7a5xL6UAbeBaO3hgM288ckXoLbLPTrFXp4MYe2yzF46BkCa z+HVWT/tmFGAvLHeADSnp5np1SrJs72kX5UVNasuA9H0dbO6dzj4cxXwG9WU+u2P9Kq+ OKIFOoTKAwHNks/cp/ak3I38eHejyVtt95YgjnUyqr28WKHl1bfKcMd8EZfHKPcM2p3U +3hiUmqFbfJumXmAnuK6Y/koh8vErO4kOBzBYQ2i0Xa4kFyVi6Jv2pSBQPhAkApDldk8 Wf7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533TqHeVSg+gnOD75t03Rb4UswKycqfO8rXCMyp4Ic2upFwxBZBj DAA20CZsM9/FN7aSPFGMqwMlZBeJe4AyFMRYH5ksig==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy2RTQANMpDLVIDyiaGR7NdQ1bsLAzZSFbB4M+T7SLJ9fXx57GHwuyCKhC9EBd4LkUsM37dM7tOgPifXFYT3m8=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9d41:: with SMTP id y1mr5942757ljj.91.1614962153176; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 08:35:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR11MB43662C6DC8C0E541D42DBF7CB5140@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAA8XPEHqN-z=K2q0-DqEE=EJvCAHMH8X9-eUxnfYpacLj8r8Gg@mail.gmail.com> <CABCOCHTEJKvchg7OtuJgJ=VjAGdtH0we=5WDWUFfhkcLBfQ2uw@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB43667D00F54AB5879D3036C9B5969@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB43667D00F54AB5879D3036C9B5969@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 08:35:42 -0800
Message-ID: <CABCOCHTZLQ7ktEbHJn61pfBM-2-U_jQSoG=ajTG-PCXWFtnLFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
Cc: joel jaeggli <joelja@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff.all@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007753a705bcccadc5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/AJxlxWfuULiaC1sDEevqSjYApwo>
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-07
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: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 16:36:05 -0000
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:58 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, authors, > > > I think you mean to address this to the WG since the redesign issues need WG approval. I have no objections to any changes. Andy > Sorry for the long delay in replying. > > > > Please see [RW] inline below … > > > > > > *From:* Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> > *Sent:* 30 October 2020 01:43 > *To:* joel jaeggli <joelja@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; > draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff.all@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-07 > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 6:09 PM joel jaeggli <joelja@gmail.com> wrote: > > Rob, > > > > These seem like reasonable suggestions. > > > > Lets see what the authors say. > > > > Thanks for this > > joel > > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 6:47 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > Here is my AD review for draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-07. Apologies for > the delay. > > Thank you for writing this document, I think that it is useful, and looks > like it is in good shape. > > > Main comments: > > 1. Should there be any text about how to find out what datastores are > supported by a device? E.g., pointing them to either YANG library, or > protocol specific mechanisms in the case of RESTCONF. > > > > Do you have a section in mind and suggested text? > > *[RW] * > > *Perhaps somewhere in section 4, either as part of the description of > source, or perhaps before the parameters are described.* > > > > *Proposed text:* > > *“A client can discover which datastores a server supports by reading YANG > library [RFC 8525] from the operational state datastore.”* > > > > > > > > 2. It might be helpful to add a comment about potential issues that could > arise by comparing <running> to <operational>, i.e., additional differences > could be reported due to inactive configuration and template processing > between <running> and <operational>. > > > > Do you have a section in mind and suggested text? > > You mean if there are differences between <running> and <intended> > > then a diff between <running> and <operational> will not be the same > > as a diff between <intended> and <operational>.? > > > > *[RW] * > > *My main concern is that if you have template expansion then comparing > <running> and <operational> may not really give a meaningful comparison, > since <running> is pre-template expansion, and <operational> (and > <intended>) are both post template expansion.* > > > > *I would suggest putting some text in section 4 or perhaps the YANG > module.* > > > > *Perhaps some text, something like: * > > > > * “Clients should to be aware that comparing <running> to <operational> > will report differences due to any configuration transformation (e.g., > inactive configuration, or the expansion of templates) between the > <running> and <intended> datastores. In these scenarios, clients may get a > more useful result by comparing the <intended> and <operational> datastores > instead.”* > > > > > > > > > > 3. I would prefer if 'exclude=origin' was in the reverse sense and perhaps > called 'report-origin' instead. With the reverse sense it seems to be > safer if new datastores are defined, where otherwise the behaviour could > end being under specified. > > > > > > IMO the WG already designed the features so if the functional requirements > have changed > > then the draft should go back to the WG for changes and new WG consensus > calls. > > *[RW] * > > > > *I don’t see this as really changing the functional requirements, but just > changing the default sense and name of an API parameter. Although, given > my comments below “with-origin” might be better than “report-origin”.* > > > > *In RFC 8526, the “with-origin” parameter is off by default, and origin > metadata is only included when the parameter is included. This keyword is > also under a feature.* > > > > *So, changing the parameter name to “with-origin” and putting it under > ”if-feature ietf-netconf-nmda:origin”, and making the default off, would > make the definition more consistent with RFC 8526.* > > > > > > > 4. Should there be an option to filter on origin metadata? E.g., only > include values that come from intended. Otherwise, things like IP > addresses learned from DHCP may always turn up as differences. > > > > IMO the WG already designed the features so if the functional requirements > have changedthen the draft should go back to the WG for changes and new WG > consensus calls. > > > > *[RW] * > > > > *Okay.* > > > > *Regards,* > > *Rob* > > > > > > > 5. I'm not that keen on the "Possible Future Extensions" section of an > RFC. Personally, I would prefer that this section is deleted, but if you > wish to retain it, then please can you move it to an appendix. > > > > OK with me to remove it > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > I've also included some minor comments inline below, and some nits at the > end: > > Abstract > > This document defines an RPC operation to compare management > datastores that comply with the NMDA architecture. > > The abstract is perhaps somewhat terse. Perhaps: > > This document defines a YANG RPC operation to compare the > contents of network management datastores that comply with > the NMDA architecture and return the differences in the > YANG-Patch format. > > > 1. Introduction > > The revised Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) > [RFC8342] introduces a set of new datastores that each hold YANG- > defined data [RFC7950] and represent a different "viewpoint" on the > data that is maintained by a server. New YANG datastores that are > introduced include <intended>, which contains validated > configuration > data that a client application intends to be in effect, and > <operational>, which contains at least conceptually operational > state > data (such as statistics) as well as configuration data that is > actually in effect. > > I would suggest deleting "at least conceptually", since the <operational> > datastore does contain all operational state, but it may be implemented as > a virtual construct that spans multiple nodes (e.g., linecards) and > processes. > > > NMDA introduces in effect a concept of "lifecycle" for management > data, allowing to clearly distinguish between data that is part of a > configuration that was supplied by a user, configuration data that > has actually been successfully applied and that is part of the > operational state, and overall operational state that includes both > applied configuration data as well as status and statistics. > > "allowing to clearly distinguish" => distinguishing" > "status and statistics" => "status information and statistics" > > > As a result, data from the same management model can be reflected in > multiple datastores. Clients need to specify the target datastore > to > be specific about which viewpoint of the data they want to access. > This way, an application can differentiate whether they are (for > example) interested in the configuration that has been applied and > is > actually in effect, or in the configuration that was supplied by a > client and that is supposed to be in effect. > > Perhaps reword the last sentence to match the logical data flow in the > server: > > For example, a client application can differentiate whether they are > interested in the configuration supplied to a server and that is > supposed to be in effect, or the configuration that has been applied > and is > actually in effect on the server. > > > When configuration that is in effect is different from configuration > that was applied, many issues can result. It becomes more difficult > to operate the network properly due to limited visibility of actual > status which makes it more difficult to analyze and understand what > is going on in the network. Services may be negatively affected > (for > example, breaking a service instance resulting in service is not > properly delivered to a customer) and network resources be > misallocated. > > Perhaps change "actual status" to "actual operational status". > > I also suggest changing the last sentence to: > > Services may be negatively affected (e.g., degrading or breaking a > customer service) or network resources may be misallocated. > > > 3. Definitions: > > It should probably define that <intended>, <operational>, (and perhaps > <running>) are used to indicate names of datastores. > > It should also explain that <compare> is used as the name of a YANG RPC. > > > 4. Data Model Overview > > At the core of the solution is a new management operation, > <compare>, > that allows to compare two datastores for the same data. > > Suggest rewording this first sentence to: > > The core of the solution is a new management operation, <compare>, > that compares the data tree contents of two datastores. > > o target: The target identifies the datastore to compare against > the > source. > > Suggest adding an example ", e.g., <operational>." > > o filter-spec: This is a choice between different filter constructs > to identify the portions of the datastore to be retrieved. It > acts as a node selector that specifies which data nodes are > within > the scope of the comparison and which nodes are outside the scope > >
- [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… joel jaeggli
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… joel jaeggli
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… Alexander L Clemm
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-… Rob Wilton (rwilton)