Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Thu, 21 December 2017 11:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 A60E7124D68 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 03:37:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 eZv6K0zY_QhJ for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 03:37:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2285F12025C for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 03:37:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (h-85-209.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [94.254.85.209]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B2F01AE0311 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:37:47 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:37:46 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20171221.123746.382540578845045602.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <cb06b12e-59d9-148e-03f0-2ffdb1e4e15f@cisco.com>
References: <fd46c4ab-5c43-1b61-2b00-ca71f13fc932@cisco.com> <20171220.160020.956270997417344353.mbj@tail-f.com> <cb06b12e-59d9-148e-03f0-2ffdb1e4e15f@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/GUzlM2FaMdSv7MZbiVaebDX92K0>
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06
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, 21 Dec 2017 11:37:50 -0000

Hi,

I need WG input on this issue.  The question is how to handle
'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name'.  I think they should all
be treated the same.  Based on previous WG discussion (see e.g. the
mail thread "draft-ietf-netmod-entity issue #13"), I think they should
all be configurable, but the configured value is only used in
operational state if the system cannot read it from the hardware.

So I suggest the following changes:

OLD:

      leaf serial-num {
        type string;
        config false;
        description
          "The vendor-specific serial number string for the
           component.  The preferred value is the serial number
           string actually printed on the component itself (if
           present).";
        reference "RFC 6933: entPhysicalSerialNum";
      }

NEW:

      leaf serial-num {
        type string;
        description
          "The vendor-specific serial number string for the
           component.  The preferred value is the serial number
           string actually printed on the component itself (if
           present).

           This leaf can be configured.  There are two use cases for
           this; as a 'post-it' note if the server cannot determine
           this value from the component, or when pre-provisioning a
           component.

           If the server can determine the serial number from the
           component, then that value is always used in operational
           state, even if another value has been configured.";
        reference "RFC 6933: entPhysicalSerialNum";
      }

And corresponding text for 'mfg-name' and 'model-name'.

And also:

OLD:

         When the server detects a new hardware component, it
         initializes a list entry in the operational state.

         If the server does not support configuration of hardware
         components, list entries in the operational state are
         initialized with values for all nodes as detected by the
         implementation.

         Otherwise, the following procedure is followed:

           1. If there is an entry in the /hardware/component list in
              the intended configuration with values for the nodes
              'class', 'parent', 'parent-rel-pos' that are equal to
              the detected values, then:

           1a. If the configured entry has a value for 'mfg-name'
               that is equal to the detected value, or if the
               'mfg-name' value cannot be detected, then the list
               entry in the operational state is initialized with the
               configured values for all configured nodes, including
               the 'name'.

               Otherwise, the list entry in the operational state is
               initialized with values for all nodes as detected by
               the implementation.  The implementation may raise an
               alarm that informs about the 'mfg-name' mismatch
               condition.  How this is done is outside the scope of
               this document.

           1b. Otherwise (i.e., there is no matching configuration
               entry), the list entry in the operational state is
               initialized with values for all nodes as detected by
               the implementation.

         If the /hardware/component list in the intended
         configuration is modified, then the system MUST behave as if
         it re-initializes itself, and follow the procedure in (1).";

NEW:

         When the server detects a new hardware component, it
         initializes a list entry in the operational state.

         If the server does not support configuration of hardware
         components, list entries in the operational state are
         initialized with values for all nodes as detected by the
         implementation.

         Otherwise, the following procedure is followed:

           1. If there is an entry in the /hardware/component list in
              the intended configuration with values for the nodes
              'class', 'parent', 'parent-rel-pos' that are equal to
              the detected values, then the list entry in operational
              state is initialized with the configured values,
              including the 'name'.  The leafs 'serial-num',
              'mfg-name', and 'model-name' are treated specially; see
              their descriptions for details.

           2. Otherwise (i.e., there is no matching configuration
              entry), the list entry in the operational state is
              initialized with values for all nodes as detected by
              the implementation.

         If the /hardware/component list in the intended
         configuration is modified, then the system MUST behave as if
         it re-initializes itself, and follow the procedure in (1).";



/martin




Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
> On 12/20/2017 4:00 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Martin,
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >> Only kept the relevant excerpts.
> >>>> - Some objects are read-write in RFC6933:
> >>>>         entPhysicalSerialNum
> >>>>         entPhysicalAlias
> >>>>         entPhysicalAssetID
> >>>>         entPhysicalUris
> >>>>
> >>>> For example, entPhysicalSerialNum being read-write always bothered me.
> >>>> serial-num is now "config false", which is a good news IMO.
> >>> Actually, this was not the intention.  In draft-ietf-netmod-entity-03
> >>> this is configurable.  I missed this in the conversion to NMDA.
> >> Ah. So no good news in this case...
> >>>> In the reverse direction, entPhysicalMfgName is read-only in RFC6933,
> >>>> while it's "config true" in draft-ietf-netmod-entity
> >>> Yes, this was added per request from the WG.  See e.g. the thread
> >>> "draft-ietf-netmod-entity issue #13".
> >> Sure. It was mainly an observation.
> >>> However, I think that what we have now is probably not correct.  I
> >>> think that all nodes 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name' should
> >>> be config true, and the description of list 'component' updated to
> >>> reflect that all these tree leafs are handled the same way.
> >>>
> >>> I would like to know what the WG thinks about this.
> >> Talking as a contributor this time.
> >> It seems that inventory management is kind of broken when someone can
> >> change 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name.
> > They can't really change them.  The configured values are only used
> > (i.e. visible in the operational state) if the device cannot detect
> > them automatically.  I.e., they work as "post-it" notes only.
> If I look at, for example, the mfg-name, description, this is not what
> it says.
> 
>    leaf mfg-name {
>            type string;
>            description
>              "The name of the manufacturer of this physical component.
>               The preferred value is the manufacturer name string
>               actually printed on the component itself (if present).
> 
>               Note that comparisons between instances of the model-name,
>               firmware-rev, software-rev, and the serial-num nodes are
>               only meaningful amongst component with the same value of
>               mfg-name.
> 
>               If the manufacturer name string associated with the
>               physical component is unknown to the server, then this
>               node is not instantiated.";
>            reference "RFC 6933 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6933>:
>            entPhysicalMfgName";
> 
> Regards, Benoit
> 
> >
> >
> > /martin
> > .
> >
>