Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Fri, 13 December 2013 13:19 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1C6E1AE26D for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 05:19:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_CZ=0.445, HOST_EQ_CZ=0.904, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=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 vnnhzAM3npvx for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 05:19:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A3C61AE26C for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 05:19:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.29.2.202] (nat-5.bravonet.cz [77.48.224.5]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 85944140858 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:19:15 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1386940755; bh=mvlbHvxAqHyRAmwqYZgda9JyFEE0p+gadcCSXyhgMx8=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=F0TIoWs13YItwV8/CGjcfDk3NvRxD47MjyrZiXyNVqHerekJToDjJYcw+bdyMYptu K+X5wL8eCye3vUyye/mZc2arDsh3BRTQVFfgzlleMQRCjvXV7r7z+66OjIJd1NAAek 9NJazonSzqq1Y58VFS2gpxZclghZcniKsfr+cFuA=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20131213.135550.900710914311144743.mbj@tail-f.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:19:14 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <67AE73D5-6415-4B05-8387-76120665A1C2@nic.cz>
References: <m2sitxoy68.fsf@nic.cz> <20131213.121509.688716145908885068.mbj@tail-f.com> <m2ppp1t11v.fsf@nic.cz> <20131213.135550.900710914311144743.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.8 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 13 Dec 2013 13:19:24 -0000

On 13 Dec 2013, at 13:55, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:

> Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:
>> Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:
>>>> Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> just an idea: would it help if the server simply records the mapped
>>>>>> DisplayString version in state data?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> No.  I am OK with the proposal to force the server to constrain the
>>>>> objects
>>>> 
>>>> Why not, actually? I mean something like this:
>>>> 
>>>> { "system-state" : {
>>>>   ...
>>>>   "location" : "Schrödingerstraße",
>>>>   "mib:sysLocation" : "Schroedingerstrasse",
>>>>   ...
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> This is similar to what Randy proposed with "legacy-location", but it
>>>> is in *state*, so it doesn't introduce a second configuration object.
>>> 
>>> But why report the MIB object at all in this case?
>>> 
>>> If we decide these objects are really separate, I don't see the need
>>> to report the MIB object.  A manager that wants to see the SNMP object
>>> in addition to the NETCONF object (for some reason) can use SNMP.
>> 
>> But the two object are not separate, they are coupled!
>> 
>> If a NETCONF client configures "location", the server maps the value
>> to a DisplayString, records the result in "mib:sysLocation" and
>> updates the MIB object with it.
> 
> Aha, so this is an alternative where an implementation MAY map, and if
> it maps, it MUST (?) use some vendor-specific translation, and it MUST
> record this in the read-only variable mib-sys-location.

Yup.

> 
> If this is what you meant, I still don't think the read-only variable
> is necessary.  The value is available over SNMP.

Right, but performing the mapping *and* recording the result is probably the maximum of what a NETCONF server can be expected to do, unless we restrict the “location” value to a DisplayString. Of course, the mib-sys-location leaf can be only optional, either feature-dependent or defined in a separate module. I am assuming it can be useful to be able to learn the mapped value without going to SNMP.

Lada

> 
> 
> /martin

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C