Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Thu, 07 September 2017 10:14 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 20558132EDE; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 03:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 MyJPmjlwIXbY; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F2B613239C; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 03:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2661; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1504779244; x=1505988844; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=d8yepCE0QvanaAEqdwJ1w651E7s+O7gfQqcntdGbmds=; b=SelHKIO9kgIuJIBtUdGRIhZ0YF7yta7zlzkcGY0VF4Gj3slZW56obrnt SdxL98K3VDdaX/1lCj5D7bJpTkyzx9ayL8vD2k2HA9uReVGAtN1qPV+cu r8WKOfrnsVUSlXoLAjFPc6aKoxa8zrk8OjPAQUfVdyUz6x4aMVB9GrDCD c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DeAwBdG7FZ/xbLJq1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBhSwng3eLFZBzK5g6CoU+AoRDFAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRkBBSMPAQV?= =?us-ascii?q?BEAsOCgICIwMCAkYRBg0GAgEBii2uFYIni0oBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBASGBD?= =?us-ascii?q?YIdg1CBYyuCfYgIgmEFkSiPTJRRi1SHHY1Xh1SBOTYhgQ0yIQgcFYdlPzaLCgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,357,1500940800"; d="scan'208";a="654452075"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Sep 2017 10:14:01 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.66] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-66.cisco.com [10.63.23.66]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v87AE1BS025646; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 10:14:01 GMT
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Cc: andy@yumaworks.com, kwatsen@juniper.net, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
References: <A57EC752-3E23-4E8E-A802-C7CDD37A3DD1@juniper.net> <CABCOCHRcXUkzQb1g3rJzu3byxsASsCMD1ewtOwAbdfoYrZEMhg@mail.gmail.com> <9cd0c109-6430-a649-66b1-8228c721538d@cisco.com> <20170907.120535.1715167966300628135.mbj@tail-f.com>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <232e44d5-28b9-a017-ec10-54a597a66c7b@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 11:14:01 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170907.120535.1715167966300628135.mbj@tail-f.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/GDlG17g-LlB-KHeFBS54juNpHZ0>
Subject: Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions
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: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 10:14:06 -0000


On 07/09/2017 11:05, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/09/2017 03:36, Andy Bierman wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net
>>> <mailto:kwatsen@juniper.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      >> /netconf-state and /restconf-state don't seem to follow the general
>>>      >> pattern we're correcting with the various NMDA updates.
>>>      Particularly,
>>>      >> these -state trees are NOT for the purpose to providing the opstate
>>>      >> value for configured nodes.  These modules have the misfortune of
>>>      >> having "-state" in their name, but they're otherwise fine.
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      > This contradicts some details we have been told about NMDA
>>>      >
>>>      > 1) the transition guidelines say otherwise
>>>      >
>>>      > New modules and modules that are not concerned with the
>>>      > operational state of configuration information SHOULD
>>>      > immediately be structured to be NMDA-compatible
>>>
>>>      Yes, I'm suggesting we give ourselves some leeway, by taking
>>>      advantage of the SHOULD keyword above and defer updating these
>>>      two modules to when it makes more sense to do so.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OK -- good.
>>> I think another sentence needs to be added.
>>>
>>>
>>> NMDA compatibility conversion MAY be deferred if the module
>>> does not contain any configuration datastore objects.
>> I agree.
> +1
>
>
>>>      > 2) RD defines operational state to include config=false nodes
>>>      > such as counters, so these modules are properly named.
>>>
>>>      module-name == top-level node name.  Either way, my point is that
>>>      the -state tree in these modules is not trying to provide the
>>>      opstate value for configured nodes (i.e. applied configuration).
>>>
>>>
>>> So a data node naming convention is needed?
>>> And a module naming convention?
>>>
>>> We need a rule that says the suffix "-state" is reserved for NMDA
>>> compatibility
>>> so module names and data nodes SHOULD NOT be named with an identifier
>>> that
>>> ends in this suffix.
>> Also agree.
> -1
>
> There are cases where a -state suffix is natural, e.g. in
> ietf-hardware we have admin-state, oper-state, usage-state etc.
>
> I prefer to have a recommendation that generated modules and top-level
> nodes are called ...-state, but that should not be a reason for making
> -state illegal in general.
Sorry, it was specifically modules and top level data nodes that I think 
this restriction should apply to.

Thanks,
Rob


>
>
> /martin
> .
>