Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-08

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 20 December 2017 21:25 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 D68DE1201F2; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:25:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 jhDZE6Ihup8X; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:25:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75FB1200C5; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:25:20 -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 B59EC1AE0388; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 22:25:19 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 22:25:19 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20171220.222519.1257114239789698472.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: bclaise@cisco.com
Cc: netmod@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <fe856e5c-5760-9bb9-ace3-cec0cfb39278@cisco.com>
References: <e2fd599f-7547-d2f7-d450-f67a3f409ae1@cisco.com> <fe856e5c-5760-9bb9-ace3-cec0cfb39278@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=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/JswHyOk-fQfQtYbBmjuzB6cT944>
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-08
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: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 21:25:23 -0000

Hi,

Thanks for this review!


Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> In order not to be the bottleneck in the process and assuming that the
> document will be in "publication requested" pretty soon, here is my AD
> review of draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-08
> 
> -
> 
> 
>        5.3.2. Missing Resources
> 
>    Configuration in <intended> can refer to resources that are not
>    available or otherwise not physically present.  In these situations,
>    these parts of <intended> are not applied.  The data appears in
>    <intended> but does not appear in <operational>.
> 
> 
> I understand what you want to say.
> Let me take an example. I have a router with a Line Card configured
> and working well. if I remove the LC, the configuration should still
> be in the <running> and <intended> but not in <operational>.
> However, based on figure below, the notion of "inactive" nodes might
> be misleading. Indeed, people might read that the LC is inactive, so
> the LC configuration should not be in <intended>
> 
>      +-------------+                 +-----------+
>      | <candidate> |                 | <startup> |
>      |  (ct, rw)   |<---+       +--->| (ct, rw)  |
>      +-------------+    |       |    +-----------+
>             |           |       |           |
>             |         +-----------+         |
>             +-------->| <running> |<--------+
>                       | (ct, rw)  |
>                       +-----------+
>                             |
>                             |        // configuration transformations,
>                             |        // e.g., removal of "inactive"
>                             |        // nodes, expansion of templates
>                             v
>                       +------------+
>                       | <intended> | // subject to validation
>                       | (ct, ro)   |
>                       +------------+
> 
> I understand that "inactive nodes" has a different meaning.
> 
> Proposal:
> OLD: removal of "inactive" nodes
> NEW: removal of the nodes marked as "inactive"

Ok, I will make this change.

> - In the C.1 example,
> 
>    <system
>        xmlns="urn:example:system"
>        xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin">
> 
>      <hostname or:origin="or:dynamic">bar</hostname>
> 
>      <interface or:origin="or:intended">
>        <name>eth0</name>
>        <auto-negotiation>
>          <enabled or:origin="or:default">true</enabled>
>          <speed>1000</speed>
>        </auto-negotiation>
>        <speed>100</speed>
>        <address>
>          <ip>2001:db8::10</ip>
>          <prefix-length>64</prefix-length>
>        </address>
>        <address or:origin="or:dynamic">
>          <ip>2001:db8::1:100</ip>
>          <prefix-length>64</prefix-length>
>        </address>
>      </interface>
> 
> I guess it "or:dynamic" should be replaced by "or:learned"

Yes, I'll fix this.

> Justification:
> 
>      identity learned {
>        base origin;
>        description
>          "Denotes configuration learned from protocol interactions with
>           other devices, instead of via either the intended
>           configuration datastore or any dynamic configuration
>           datastore.
> 
>           Examples of protocols that provide learned configuration
>           include link-layer negotiations, routing protocols,_and DHCP._";
> 
> 
> _Editorial:_
> 
> - number the figures

Ok.

> - section 8.2
>    This document registers two YANG modules in the YANG Module Names
>    registry [RFC6020 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020>].  Following
>    the format in [RFC6020 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020>], the the
>    following registrations are requested:
> 
> duplicated "the the"

Fixed.

Chairs, should I post a new version with these fixes?


/martin