Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC on YANG Library (bis)

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Fri, 16 February 2018 09:18 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.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 9159312D879; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 01:18:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 nMgVlpcRIl4A; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 01:18:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from trail.lhotka.name (trail.lhotka.name [77.48.224.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE2D31242F7; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 01:18:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix, from userid 109) id B30C81820415; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:16:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (unknown [195.113.220.121]) by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0454618203F6; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:16:36 +0100 (CET)
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, NETCONF WG <netconf@ietf.org>, NETMOD WG <netmod@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHRsLJc8_sG0hmpY3WaD5hYezebSoM2RtrHOvObC0mXG5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F10CE657-FC6B-491B-A8DF-0CFEE98B863C@gmail.com> <4a6b7077-a721-6d09-b594-44f9760e58a1@cisco.com> <14390982-A1C2-40E5-AEA1-B03B02E8ACEC@juniper.net> <3d3d9e35-b9f5-aefb-a291-a25549ed9ad5@cisco.com> <20180215180955.idnyuacivy6h3lrf@elstar.local> <CABCOCHRsLJc8_sG0hmpY3WaD5hYezebSoM2RtrHOvObC0mXG5w@mail.gmail.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, NETCONF WG <netconf@ietf.org>, NETMOD WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:18:42 +0100
Message-ID: <87vaexjnrh.fsf@nic.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Cc9KvA9T_PFM8-UTQHb80ONeiJ0>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC on YANG Library (bis)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 16 Feb 2018 09:18:59 -0000

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> writes:

> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:09 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 05:03:32PM +0000, Robert Wilton wrote:
>> >
>> > 1) module "feature" in YANG library is a leaf-list, but currently it is a
>> > list in YANG libary bis. I suspect that this is due to one of the
>> > incarnations when it contained additional information.  I think that we
>> > should revert it back to being a leaf list for consistency.
>> >
>> > 2) Lada recommended that module "deviation" be made a leaf-list. I also
>> > support changing this for consistency with "feature" above, but don't
>> feel
>> > too strongly on this one.
>> >
>>
>> I suggest we either make both leaf-lists or keep both as lists. I am
>> fine with making both lead-lists.
>>
>>
>
> The reason the deviation is a list is because it has a name and revision.
> Or it did until it was removed.
>
> I prefer to keep the contents of the "module" list the
> same as RFC 7895.  The "improvement" is much worse --
> harder to use by clients and provides less information to clients.

So we currently have:

1. "deviation": [
     {
       "module": "foo-devs"
     },
     {
       "module": "bar-devs"
     }
   ]

and the proposal is to have instead

2. "deviation-module": [
     "foo-devs",
     "bar-dev"
   ]

I fail to see why #2 is harder to use for clients, I would say it is the
opposite. Also, #2 doesn't provide less information than RFC 7895 - the
revision parameter is readily available in the "module" list.

I also expect that this data will be used not only in machine-to-machine
communication but could also be perused by humans - see
e.g. draft-lengyel-netmod-yang-instance-data. For this purpose, #2 is a
clear winer.

Lada

>
>
>
>> /js
>>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Netconf mailing list
>> Netconf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

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