Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding support
Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Fri, 29 March 2019 18:57 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 083081202CB for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
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, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 u_7cjKVwU5f7 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x236.google.com (mail-lj1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) (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 DC3241202C4 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x236.google.com with SMTP id q66so2885889ljq.7 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
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; bh=eOtZ/aqxgDjLyIwdqUlgs/ZhNFf42HiUj4m1WVJDzDs=; b=dDYCZeMGuarx9APbjjOuKxrL2B32DUvZMUjRe+43gmwHA8LzrVJc76BrzirTDXTTMg h+LPtE0BeClvJaXhZkKZ59M/BuAMl71i79Cd0w5rfRTDDW0XkWS1ySkSnNuX3SeCkaPr GNBkquRDH7VrmJLm94b9zjHVYLNvjyCxHkiVxuVFhwIldjTFH2X1dAMOQ9BqqH7Nrogr b6qzPmL7p7+n12D6brsPKLtbEYwvTQlqMIiyTP0nDYxjNYbHqgngV+tfvqfvH4/bGcWr PRFNqQqlf7Q8iCKvZKZZos/IIpUuyymGDwNpHyDOdbzgfgDQKShGp43sN+Ptd2EfPvD0 AZNA==
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; bh=eOtZ/aqxgDjLyIwdqUlgs/ZhNFf42HiUj4m1WVJDzDs=; b=ahwgmLJ3GQdwrlMNxL0sERm/71GYwRpwJNHhxZdlryNsU2HuI/ZrrFboD3CnNgjMco SrxL3gSKBeZWwUYamrL6pBNgjMm8l14003sIV/UkrL93kppAsU+zrE1K5KfR1PpVtgSX fyyX8sc2/EXJGHpR/471v3p7ge4C5I/YDEGW3srbYXAXU0sHrS6DDjS48GNQsUcVIkdL 2IxZ2GdovlwNtWE9sNrMNHvFGfamWLAyccTfXe0aIokLWBhxyI8H/ESyPztSIrJmZxKS rWVQxa77Gui+2tPedMSLt+hqXHf9EvRMeG6WiOtAPdz/UNerp8c3NPnXqc1L5w3D08KR impA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXRu1JGlbspbJJTjCpCcgAzGZHbk3VHG6mjCgi6WQGZk2frFJuI DojMUgQv45zjVJ3jLv30EMbomZL8Xu8JS44h264Krw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwaKCN+lJVfGedOXVQlRwVYbBy/3tS6K8HkkK4mLF+A/uBPqtM2p4UUQ5ezVvBiZbAeoWt265Qv4EhXSjl5XLE=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:844a:: with SMTP id u10mr15984802ljh.41.1553885865825; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190329111930.k2dt6wctsazxa7rp@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <CABCOCHS=VhfpKHYhB_eQ8Y9i5FK6+R1q4a8Soc=z=HRYJLV5OA@mail.gmail.com> <20190329161723.xuh3avyrdepdw3px@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <CABCOCHS6cNhG_YeeW_ueYMOvo1TQHfpFi8TQGDrka12yoRvZLA@mail.gmail.com> <20190329184624.4sg6lbasv5b5u4hw@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
In-Reply-To: <20190329184624.4sg6lbasv5b5u4hw@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:57:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHR=ZEYFK5ifnsTYnMgmKb+yPkLXZ0+kqoGWzhcEHkhSQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000de30e0585403f57"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/E_ZWycuEAvb2YODtbSV2nO71e60>
Subject: Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding support
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, 29 Mar 2019 18:57:53 -0000
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:46 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 09:30:19AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:17 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 09:07:18AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:19 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > > > j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > this is issue is closed but I wonder whether this is correct. I > have > > > > > several questions looking at the issue on github: > > > > > > > > > > - Why is this not a YANG issue? > > > > > - Which workaround is better? > > > > > - Why is this tagged as a NETCONF issue? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you mean this should be NETCONF issue? > > > > It is more of a protocol problem then a modeling problem. > > > > The goal is to use the model unaltered. > > > > > > I think it would be valuable if say the definition of ipv4-address > > > could state that a canonical binary representation is of type binary { > > > length 4; }. Doing this is only meaningful for some types but it would > > > allow to add more binary representations over time. > > > > > > > > If we want to support binary encodings, we need to allow modelers > to > > > > > define which types map to a canonical binary representation in > > > > > addition to the canonical string representation. As stated in the > > > > > issue description, hard-wiring some types in the encoding > > > > > specifications is very limited. > > > > > > > > > > In terms of backwards compatibility, this issue should IMHO be > tagged > > > > > high (adding binary encoding for some types does not cause any > > > > > backwards compatibility problem since so far we have only strings). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not so sure. > > > > The base64 encoding could look like a valid string. > > > > The receiver must know a binary type is being sent (XML and JSON both > > > fail > > > > here, but not CBOR). > > > > > > I am talking about CBOR, not about XML or JSON. I want to provide > > > hints to CBOR (or similar binary encodings) that values can be > > > represented in a different format. I do not expect these hints to be > > > used by XML or JSON. If you need binary encoding efficiency, use CBOR > > > instead of JSON. > > > > > > > > While I do not have a solution proposal, I think this issue is > worth > > > > > to look at and we should not close it right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a solution proposal, but I have not implemented it yet, so it > it > > > not > > > > detailed... > > > > > > > > Both sender and receiver need to agree on the binary encoding and > how the > > > > data is tagged as binary. > > > > > > > > This expired draft should address that problem: > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahesh-netconf-binary-encoding-01 > > > > > > > > For every type T that they agree on, there are standard T.b2y() and > > > T.y2b() > > > > conversion functions. > > > > There are also some extensions to define conversion templates so > vendors > > > > can add their own types. > > > > > > > > The YANG modules do not need to actually be altered. The peers will > > > > negotiate the > > > > set of types that will be sent as binary when the session starts. > > > > The receiver knows T and the SID for each object, and will accept > either > > > > the YANG or binary encoding. > > > > > > Sounds complex for me to negotiate this. I rather say once that a > > > binary encoding can ship an IPv6 address as type binary { length 16; } > > > and then CBOR will simply do the right thing. > > > > > > > > OK, but this would require new type names. > > You cannot simply change some standard type to be a union with a binary > > type. > > > > This forces all implementations of that type to support the binary > variant. > > That breaks old clients that worked with the version before the binary > > variant. > > > > The ripple effect on the models changing types would be non-trivial. > > Using this union-type approach forces every protocol to support the > binary > > encoding, > > yet base64 in a union with strings is very error-prone. > > > > I am not proposing do change the type definitions we have. My idea was > to have an optional additional definition for binary encodings. Here > is an ad-hoc example (I do not like the details of the syntax, but > perhaps this helps to understand the idea): > > typedef ipv4-address { > type string { > pattern > '(([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9][0-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])\.){3}' > + '([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9][0-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])'; > } > description > "The ipv4-address type represents an IPv4 address in > dotted-quad notation."; > > binary-representation { > type binary { > length 4; > } > description > "The binary representation uses as 4-byte binary string > in network byte ordering."; > } > } > > The CBOR encoder (or other binary encoders) would then encode the > value as a 4 byte binary value, the XML and JSON encoder would use the > canonical string representation. If the binary-representation is not > specified, then the generic CBOR encoding rules apply. I assume that > additional binary representation definitions will only be needed for a > couple of types (and I might even be fine to restrict that to > typedefs). Anyway, details need work, but if we want to support more > efficient binary encodings, then I think we should keep the issue #46 > open. > > OK -- this is what I had in mind but off to the side, like a deviations module. If the client and server agree on the module containing the standard extension usages it will not be that complex in the protocol. ex:binary-representation ietf-inet-types:ipv4-address { ex:binary-length 4; ex:binary-pattern "b0.b1.b2.b3"; } I agree YANG 1.2 should have real statements instead of extensions. > /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/> >
- [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding supp… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding … Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding … Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding … Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding … Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding … Kent Watsen