Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding support
Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Fri, 29 March 2019 21:38 UTC
Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.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 58FD71202F5 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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=gmail.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 b7DGHQNB6i4G for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x629.google.com (mail-pl1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::629]) (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 1F8841202C0 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x629.google.com with SMTP id g37so1607326plb.5 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=6XJ12zKPeWK4eFbX7gIqsb9ADtfxwrzTOHGGOU5UmXA=; b=pSPR0+N+yMxg4EMiZdWzQCZR5wbpTV2nyCYphClyQp/hZ9c5DNiI7wA/DTBYK7pNAe v/kF78cGHEOoJFaVVxyOEKGkDHFBsNw/BXOYnHf5tAepbqOketqpuGL1diBn23P92nzD dFJMDYSMW3mmQ3O3SOcj8aW6ejfKNvMVUWgkJSJOD97m/uqgI4dKtzqrV6ZkJFS7lttb 8PAAFcHZNrdG88gz2lcbr4BkuxugCAe2JOTMLV7n2dTuJ8AGli79ACABnfwZ0pzM1yXS ExC9xLHoDHIaWG3iP7CEO6UszEN5dI4+ADxWuDdxlOLdcptw1HvgRC1maDD3ZxBvsybZ N4LA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=6XJ12zKPeWK4eFbX7gIqsb9ADtfxwrzTOHGGOU5UmXA=; b=Du3HrDc6iO0rdbm/FjddBpax2geAP0Ru7xpTNcCET8BVIKM3bg8JIP0e1oOidSnBq6 /mr3cmdchSNIkCilqkZ+UBa47V2BRrep0cHWmC45mGKhbenTMGZQRWxmd9+z+Z/yf1tZ l+4Vc9sxxqXDSmsXCFQ8t2ddEErD09MpLUMjhVbMBu+A4NPBYuWoXqbnNCuS22g2rZ6P ZbXDA+NHBJ0VZ3deJTAuOlMpaSV0zrPz4QemNLqWMQkFkUrRp9oX+HC33v1IMgFQO5bh /kmfm+MCbSCo2ZtweKB/48BkUZEaGUT6D1x5QggADr8C0kkTxqlyhBfcsyYQ2QSe+sLD fMHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVhPA3l4Qhy5EeradYF9U7qn4Y8r7uNa9zwr7J4Mk0PRe1eLbKU OXF2deYJZbKG5KWTWCU96C7UQVlQ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzJnRSaFdA8V0pWIvYwDRb79hM4VkZ693vEVZcJ/bsmv1OEWKRPvryF1xL3l8shGPBIAVjXWw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:bb90:: with SMTP id m16mr52887502pls.49.1553895492570; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.33.123.214] ([66.170.99.1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h65sm3743557pgc.93.2019.03.29.14.38.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <CE01FFB0-25B3-442E-B5DB-903065BE742C@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_082B2769-7D62-4C1C-89AF-DC3F9059D5E7"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 14:38:10 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHR=ZEYFK5ifnsTYnMgmKb+yPkLXZ0+kqoGWzhcEHkhSQg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
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> <CABCOCHR=ZEYFK5ifnsTYnMgmKb+yPkLXZ0+kqoGWzhcEHkhSQg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/JYDarR3WPy1r-FIQLSMhX4bOq8s>
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 21:38:17 -0000
Based on this discussion, I think we should reopen and change the title of this issue as “binary encoding in YANG support”, while I open a new issue in netconf-next for “support for binary encoding in NETCONF”. > On Mar 29, 2019, at 11:57 AM, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:46 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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/ <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>> > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod> Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanandani@gmail.com
- [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