Re: [netmod] Text in import to indicate whether a module is needed as import-only or as implemented

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:57 AM Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Sorry to resurrect this old email thread.
> To me, it's an important piece of information to know that ietf-netconf-acm
> is optional to implement.
>
> It seems that we have 3 potential places where to insert this information
> 1. The associated document. We could and should insert it into the RFC
> text.
>     Drawback: Somehow the YANG module is looked at independently of the
> associated document
> 2. import-stmt: people on the list apparently don't like this
> 3. module description? What harm would it do if the description could
> contain this info?
>
>
IMO it makes more sense to summarize the imported modules that need to be
implemented
and not mention the ones that are not required.  The module
description-stmt is better
than each import. (YANG 1.1 allows the same module to be imported multiple
times).


> Regards, Benoit
>

Andy


>
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 5:44 AM Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 04:49 -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:11 AM Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 2020-01-07 at 14:29 +0000, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
>> > > > If that is the consensus, I can remove the description statements,
>> no big
>> > > > deal. (I actually like the statements, but they are not important
>> for this
>> > > > draft)
>> > >
>> > > Of course, it is not that important, but I don't see how this
>> information
>> > > could
>> > > be harmful, if it is included with the import. In my view, it is not
>> meant
>> > > as a
>> > > conformance requirement but just an info from the module author about
>> the
>> > > meaning of the import statement.
>> > >
>> >
>> > It adds a lot of extra work but more importantly the import-stmt is the
>> wrong
>> > place
>>
>> What work do you mean? I thought that it would be just info for potential
>> developers (or their managers) that implementing the module requires
>> implementing other modules and functionality - or not.
>>
>>
>
> It is duplication because the individual data-def statements should have
> any notes
> about implementation requirements. The duplication may even be wrong.
> E.g., in the module it says NACM is not required, but what if some objects
> have NACM requirements listed in the Security Considerations section?
> That is the RFC section to discuss NACM requirements.
>
>
> For example, if a module imports ietf-netconf-nacm only for using "node-
>> instance-identifier" type, it is relatively uninteresting. Otherwise,
>> implementation of the module may just be out of question.
>>
>>
>> > to document such a complex and unrelated issue as server conformance
>> > requirements.
>> >
>> >
>> > > The root of this problem (and design flaw of YANG, IMO) is that
>> import is
>> > > "overloaded" with two different purposes, one of which effectively
>> requires
>> > > that
>> > > the imported module be also implemented, while the other doesn't.
>> > >
>> >
>> > The import-stmt is only used to map a local prefix to an external
>> module.
>>
>> But one thing is using a prefix for accessing top-level types and
>> groupings
>> (i.e. stuff in YANG modules), and another thing is accessing schema
>> nodes, which
>> have to be present in the schema tree. In complicated data models, it is
>> not
>> exactly easy to figure out all these dependencies.
>>
>>
> I do not agree these are different things.
> In both cases the prefix is used to determine the imported module that
> contains the identifier.
>
>
> So maybe what is really overloaded are the namespace prefixes: they are
>> used for
>> addressing YANG modules, schema nodes and instances (in XPath).
>>
>> Lada
>>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>>
>> > This proposal to add conformance info the the import-stmt would
>> overload it
>> > with
>> > another purpose.
>> >
>> > Not even a typedef is easy to classify  (e.g., leafref requires
>> implementation
>> > of a data node).
>> > I certainly agree that YANG conformance is poorly specified, poorly
>> > understood, and
>> > in real need of improvement. Likewise, the import-stmt is also in need
>> of some
>> > improvement
>> > since import-by-exact-revision is (and has always been) poorly designed.
>> >
>> >
>> > > Lada
>> > >
>> > > > Balazs
>> >
>> > Andy
>> >
>> >
>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > From: Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>
>> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 2:38 PM
>> > > > To: Balázs Lengyel <[e-mail]>
>> > > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Text in import to indicate whether a module is
>> > > needed as
>> > > > import-only or as implemented
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi
>> > > >
>> > > > I agree w/ Andy and others that we should not add this to the
>> import's
>> > > > description.  I don't think this kind of conformance text belongs
>> to the
>> > > > import's description.  If you think it is important to state this,
>> the
>> > > best
>> > > > place is probably as plain text in the document itself.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > /martin
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel=[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> > > > > As a draft author who was asked to add text about the imports IMHO
>> > > > >
>> > > > > *   it would be easy for me to remove the description from the
>> import.
>> > > > > Actually I really just want to know what is acceptable to the
>> group, so
>> > > I
>> > > > > can proceed
>> > > > > *   I also think that adding this text is in most cases easy and
>> it does
>> > > not
>> > > > > need updates later.
>> > > > > *   The rules in some cases might not be trivial.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > *   Imported YAMs need to be implemented if
>> > > > >
>> > > > > *   Imported parts are included in Xpath (augment, when, must,
>> require-
>> > > > > instance)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > *   Imported YAMs do not need to be implemented if only the
>> following
>> > > are
>> > > > > used
>> > > > >
>> > > > > *   Types
>> > > > > *   Features
>> > > > > *   extensions
>> > > > >
>> > > > > *   Ambiguous if
>> > > > >
>> > > > > *   groupings are used
>> > > > > *   if the dependency is not formally defined by YANG, but
>> functionally
>> > > > > needed. (E.g. notification-capabilities does not formally need
>> YANG-
>> > > > > Push
>> > > to
>> > > > > be implemented, however there is no sense in defining
>> capabilities if
>> > > YANG-
>> > > > > Push is itself not implemented.)
>> > > > > *   deviation ?
>> > > > > *   other cases ?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Regards Balazs
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > From: netmod <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
>> > > > > Sent: 2019. december 19., csütörtök 17:23
>> > > > > To: Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>
>> > > > > Cc: NetMod WG <[e-mail]>
>> > > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Text in import to indicate whether a module
>> is
>> > > > > needed as import-only or as implemented
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 8:00 AM Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:
>> > > > > [e-mail]> > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, 2019-12-19 at 07:52 +0000, Schönwälder, Jürgen wrote:
>> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 08:23:27AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> > > > > > > I don't see how YANG syntax defines this. If a module imports
>> > > > > > > ietf-netconf- acm, it could be because
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > - it just uses a typedef, such as "node-instance-identifier",
>> and
>> > > then
>> > > > > > >   ietf-netconf-acm needn't be implemented (but can be),
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > - it augments ietf-netconf-acm, which makes sense only if the
>> latter
>> > > > > > >   module is implemented.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > It it the YANG library that specifies whether a module is
>> > > > > > > implemented or not, but the "import" statement itself doesn't
>> tell
>> > > you
>> > > > > > > anything.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Can we not assume that an implementor will figure out the
>> difference?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > An implementor should be able to figure it out, but other
>> potential
>> > > > > module users may not. For example, if somebody is evaluating
>> whether
>> > > > > to use a module for their device or not, it is important to know
>> that
>> > > > > NACM has to be implemented (or not).
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You seem to be talking about a new conformance documentation
>> procedure
>> > > > >
>> > > > > that attempts to solve the problem "to use modules A, B, and C
>> > > > > together
>> > > > >
>> > > > > to achieve some functionality X, all these conditions need to be
>> met"..
>> > > > >
>> > > > > (Sounds more like a problem for YANG Packages to solve)
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > IMO this is a much harder problem than something that can be
>> solved
>> > > > >
>> > > > > with extra description-stmt text. The writer is likely to get it
>> wrong
>> > > > > or not
>> > > > >
>> > > > > keep it up to date, so a tool to analyze the file seems like a
>> better
>> > > > > solution.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Lada
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Andy
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Or someone writes a pyang plugin to determine from the schema
>> tree
>> > > > > > the kind of imports there are (for a given set of features).
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > /js
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Ladislav Lhotka
>> > > > > Head, CZ.NIC Labs
>> > > > > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>> > > > >
>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > netmod mailing list
>> > > > > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> > > > >
>> --
>> Ladislav Lhotka
>> Head, CZ.NIC Labs
>> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
>
>