Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Thu, 04 October 2018 15:04 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 7B9B3130E67 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 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] 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 Vu6Vu2PTweoz for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x233.google.com (mail-lj1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::233]) (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 E7569130E63 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x233.google.com with SMTP id r8-v6so8663810ljc.10 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 08:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tfe5bQexYU7NVdZel50pijECyLia6Kt4AmW6NBQu7dQ=; b=lc0L855L7Lc/MxjzJAMpbRAfjdUpfrV3wWXCxVcMMEjni0Y4F9Edql2XYf8NsYl6hj 3wqizo1HLufYuxleaGP87r7PKhZzNhWcIkCQKpNT/gTUCFkNBicz9GUcGI4f/i1BzwC1 Psy8n5brDFXSxpCLIviu/J/UDgEymjw5AC6XLuFkVY6Us1c6yKs0eA0i307eqFiSgTK7 UrFGyaYNFpISXeuJ4gF/omEmlzJ4O/GogY1n85SvVDoQG5AT5mgOt3moXKeFX+e2OFrl mcwalY0rPzij3WIRo1h06BDEYUNu5RcNaCejt+j0EIts0tWQXK/vFcqlQdLHnXiZ+GHd jD6A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tfe5bQexYU7NVdZel50pijECyLia6Kt4AmW6NBQu7dQ=; b=e+8fqKoEAYNmealqTRCq4uphy/IICHSpE1Jh2sZVy/duBBR7JhoOjGo9ohxeIQvef1 ELFezS3iNhgtUsWgVv1H6fxD4VliW0IjpGB7KgTh4pNAHcOrDbbeTzrYocrbdvEtK0B3 dOzUWkePpLOPtct3EKoWyOI1DpxpHGk+eCOXTS5mdFG4MySnYStUm0ffKOyTdEZ8glar iNfOVZgndeo6e3E+qoVheKx/JfrKLQKL1aig9ZkcvxbX59Xg+uuRgmLHWvP5ZDk+ha5G FfyRfbmVGZqGS/l7ZMKkO7buAn1RlQaI1gt8ub4UnTKf5XDNJu4Oc/UR/iEHjHWHC2W4 p2Fw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfog0PvXR+FaWPQeGTNQxqcxcegbI5JWpDr/kN8EVzNu+wQ04iT4Z 17UXiCKqQ9KA7QQ3aWslejxTw+1uuLuhhDHmTV+Dng==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV63Pu0rKRb8eJEmtJbQR5N0n1tsFOabBlsiJCRAItkRDiRMQNgCzWgskUJexO6emPLDvcSB1gxQQ6Kc1AQQiJIE=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:4408:: with SMTP id r8-v6mr4863029lja.21.1538665485651; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 08:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a19:f811:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20181004.154448.1934765954209842070.mbj@tail-f.com>
References: <69afa537-9a5f-6fb6-de21-2add0ffec4b2@cisco.com> <0aa239221e80e812f920db6ae023eabc6b3ef5ed.camel@nic.cz> <ccc83277-cfa7-f363-1beb-78e801f8b675@cisco.com> <20181004.154448.1934765954209842070.mbj@tail-f.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 08:04:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQOnLcHeOkrv51zSKyBqGP-kc0PjzM4q6Fs=BfAJTPpZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Cc: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b384410577687992"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/HSp_vzxkmwI-6Vi7veLZJeyV-Do>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
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: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 15:04:57 -0000

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 6:44 AM, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:

> Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > >> On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > >>> Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net> wrote:
> > >>>> Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
> > >>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> > >>>> [I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here, but ...]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Can we ensure this model contains a "format" leaf in the RPC's input
> > >>>> so that future (and proprietary) formats can be supported?   That
> > >>>> leaf can be an identityref that defaults to yang-patch.
> > >>> I think this is a good idea.  I would prefer the edit-config format
> > >>> over YANG patch for describing a diff.  The edit-config format is
> more
> > >>> suited for this purpose imo.
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> I would like something closer to edit-config to be available via
> > >> RESTCONF as well.
> > > YANG Patch is IMO better because it clearly separates the target for
> > > the edits
> > > from the new content.
> >
> > > In edit-config these two are mixed together.
> > Yes, that is primarily why I prefer the edit-config.  I perceive that
> > it is a denser and more efficient format.  I think that it is both
> > easier to construct (when diffing two trees) and also more efficient
> > to apply when generating an updated tree.
>
> I agree, this is why I prefer this format for general diffs.
>
>

If the filter input is a complex XPath expression, the result could be a
node-set that has
data from all over the tree.  Reproducing the "path from root" is an
implementation
detail that is probably complex whether it is a reconstructed XPath
expression
or a reconstructed subtree.

<tangent>
I don't like using identityrefs because the conformance for them is so
poorly defined in YANG.

e.g.


identity compare-format;

identity yang-patch {
  base compare-format;
}

identity my-yang-patch1 {
  base compare-format;
}

identity my-yang-patch2 {
  base yang-patch;
}

...

leaf filter-format {
  type identityref {
     base compare-format;
  }
}

It is IMPOSSIBLE in machine-readable YANG to say that identity "yang-patch"
is mandatory to support for leaf "filter-format". In plain YANG any of these
identities is valid.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to say in  machine-readable YANG that a client that
understands "yang-patch"
will work with a server that supports only "my-yang-patch2".

Of course there is no way to discover which identities are supported on a
server for
a given identityref leaf.
</tangent>





> /martin
>


Andy


>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > >
> > > That being said, I support specifying format/media-type and having
> > > potentially
> > > multiple options.
> > >
> > > Lada
> > >
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Rob
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> /martin
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> netmod mailing list
> > >>> netmod@ietf.org
> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > >>> .
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> netmod mailing list
> > >> netmod@ietf.org
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > netmod@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>