[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis: Comment on node-instance-identifier

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Mon, 30 September 2019 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.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 D5F10120099; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 DrxWOAdCsMvB; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29E78120058; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3280; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1569853048; x=1571062648; h=to:subject:from:message-id:date:mime-version; bh=02Ly2HJn4yJnjDw14zFc2ZIRVNQ3R8JQld3gjgn9SPM=; b=TTnmkadgmQPtvgY7Hz3GxDQ54Xz0SK8i2NUBhT9/a+s9JH4Q18mvFidn nYR2Pg9LNnU7tZE1PDLL9zJ8fOIeUESLB9G6OVTkgNO2jx2gY+C//+OkY iAu/z6FtVDg6INZwm5XzDQDroW1evNTzQG2hK3oaVEYjLlRsMerZW/C4U I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A/AABpDZJd/4QNJK1cChoBAQEBAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBDAIBAQEBgVYCAQEBAQsBgRuBAoFAMoRMjnCJU4tTiAgJAQEBDi8BAYg?= =?us-ascii?q?FIzcGDgIDCQEBBAEBAQIBBQRthTmFdXU+Al8BDAgBAYMeggusbHWBMh+FLoM?= =?us-ascii?q?ngUiBNAGMDRiBQD+BOIMphBmDNoJYBJYKlw2CLJUFBhuOCIsujiGQH4kogWg?= =?us-ascii?q?igVgzGggbFYMoTxAUkBRAA5EwAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,567,1559520000"; d="scan'208,217";a="418759758"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 30 Sep 2019 14:17:27 +0000
Received: from [10.82.233.40] (rtp-vpn5-295.cisco.com [10.82.233.40]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x8UEHQO9000489; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 14:17:26 GMT
To: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis@ietf.org, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <9878ec54-4b3b-e83c-a60c-973478de11f4@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 15:17:25 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------DBA7948C71A2BB7E8530EFEA"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.82.233.40, rtp-vpn5-295.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-10.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/CinKjokQOoyAp3ScD4RYMmaBXZk>
Subject: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis: Comment on node-instance-identifier
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: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 14:17:30 -0000

Hi Juergen,

Should the "node-instance-identify" type specify how the path "/" is 
treated?

I noted that in rfc8341, the behavior for "/" is described in the leaf 
"path" description rather than in the type definition, but I was 
thinking that it might be better if this behaviour was specified as part 
of the typedef.

Snippet from RFC8341:

              case data-node {
                leaf path {
                  type node-instance-identifier;
                  mandatory true;
                  description
                    "Data node instance-identifier associated with the
                     data node, action, or notification controlled by
                     this rule.

                     Configuration data or state data
                     instance-identifiers start with a top-level
                     data node.  A complete instance-identifier is
                     required for this type of path value.

                     The special value '/' refers to all possible
                     datastore contents.";
                }
              }

Thanks,
Rob