Re: [netmod] [Netconf] [netconf] Comments on draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-05

Rohit R Ranade <rohitrranade@huawei.com> Wed, 02 May 2018 11:29 UTC

Return-Path: <rohitrranade@huawei.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 EFB64126CE8; Wed, 2 May 2018 04:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Yb2OEaAf8dHJ; Wed, 2 May 2018 04:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7F4A126B72; Wed, 2 May 2018 04:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 13367140E68D1; Wed, 2 May 2018 12:28:56 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEMA421-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.154) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Wed, 2 May 2018 12:28:53 +0100
Received: from DGGEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.74]) by dggema421-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.198.154]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Wed, 2 May 2018 19:28:42 +0800
From: Rohit R Ranade <rohitrranade@huawei.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] [netconf] Comments on draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-05
Thread-Index: AQHT3IIfwgC8BOYcKUCUv6tR3C0KuqQcVJCg
Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 11:28:42 +0000
Message-ID: <991B70D8B4112A4699D5C00DDBBF878A6B1F5AD1@DGGEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <991B70D8B4112A4699D5C00DDBBF878A6B1E92F6@DGGEMA502-MBX.china.huawei.com> <20180425104222.2asz5wiuierdumr4@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20180425104222.2asz5wiuierdumr4@elstar.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.150.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/EQcJhMjEUh0A3gWmGVZzUb1Wdj4>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Netconf] [netconf] Comments on draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-05
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: Wed, 02 May 2018 11:29:03 -0000

Hi Juergen,

Some thoughts in-lined.

With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] 
Sent: 25 April 2018 16:12
To: Rohit R Ranade <rohitrranade@huawei.com>
Cc: netconf@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [netconf] Comments on draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-05

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 04:22:24AM +0000, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I plan to implement this draft and hence had some implementation related clarifications.
> 
> 
> 1.       I feel that there should be more text added about "origin" filtering mechanism. I am not clear about some aspects of origin filtering.
> 
> RFC 8342 : NMDA RFC provides the below example
> 
> <interfaces xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin"
>                  or:origin="or:intended">
>        <interface>
>          <name>lo0</name>
>          <description>loopback</description>
>          <ip-address or:origin="or:system">127.0.0.1</ip-address>
>          <ip-address>::1</ip-address>
>        </interface>
>      </interfaces>
> If user provides <origin-filter> as "system" ONLY, then he will NOT get this record in output. Because the keys have originated from "intended" . Right ?
> So, If user wants to get the system originated data, he MUST give all the origins in the <origin-filter> where the keys of the system data have originated from. Can you please confirm whether this is OK.

I would expect that <origin-filter>or:system</origin-filter> would select the ip-address tagged with or:origin="or:system" and that the system would return any necessary container or list elements and the necessary key elements (since otherwise the value returned is just useless). So the result would be:

      <interfaces xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin"
                  or:origin="or:intended">
        <interface>
          <name>lo0</name>
          <ip-address or:origin="or:system">127.0.0.1</ip-address>
        </interface>
      </interfaces>

[Rohit R Ranade] While this looks OK for the origin filter, for the negated-origin-filter, for the same example given above, if <negated-origin-filter> or:intended<negated-origin-filter> is given, then it will give the "system" related nodes even if it encountered the "intended" node first, which the user definitely dint want included in the output ? Can you please confirm whether this is OK.
   Can you please clarify whether the negated filter has higher priority than the selected filter ?

> Another example given in RFC 8342 is as below:
>      <interfaces xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin"
>                  or:origin="or:intended">
>        <interface or:origin="or:system">
>          <name>lo0</name>
>          <ip-address>127.0.0.1</ip-address>
>          <ip-address>::1</ip-address>
>        </interface>
>      </interfaces>
> 
> ?  Here keys are originated from "system", but it is under container of "intended". So if user gives "system" for "origin-filter", the output will still NOT have this instance output ?

We allow origin values on containers or lists in order to inherit them, i.e., to achieve a more compact encoding. Anyway, if a leaf node matches, then I think any encompassing containers and list should be included in the result so that the matching leaf can be reported. So you would return

      <interfaces xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin"
                  or:origin="or:intended">
        <interface or:origin="or:system">
          <name>lo0</name>
          <ip-address>127.0.0.1</ip-address>
          <ip-address>::1</ip-address>
        </interface>
      </interfaces>

instead of not returning anything at all.

> ?  Also the container is not defined as "presence" in C.3.  Interface Example, but still it has origin whether that is Ok ?

Why not?
[Rohit R Ranade] RFC 8342 Section 5.3.4
" The origin applies to all configuration nodes except non-presence containers.  "



/js

-- 
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/>