Re: [netmod] Instance data and annotations

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Mon, 22 July 2019 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
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 5DBD0120125 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 0dM2v-fUa-87 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 928FD12011B for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from birdie (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:e0e6:7446:b50f:deb9]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BFBB6140B77; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:10:04 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1563822605; bh=/P3dn8AikxDkUEHupLPif8YG8l0uUb1/VuNaYYbuzY8=; h=From:To:Date; b=iJ8EYFPjF4y7Vu5UngxcMc7nq/mKfldtf5tN5tZ9tXACRRRy15TP7yitp9TF5mpD3 a9xJ4nQfvXDIDxGVyCKmOqvNjJxKBFVwABEp1NtX1Difckza4Gqm1//WOvUtWn59by B1ck+nAAAJqJ2ce6tK8dYY3HStH+cm1p9uA9P4D0=
Message-ID: <c4b0e894171a06954a78687930855b4d23b40252.camel@nic.cz>
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:10:02 -0400
In-Reply-To: <11AD0955-E7A6-4BB9-A9D1-463636B4076D@cisco.com>
References: <11AD0955-E7A6-4BB9-A9D1-463636B4076D@cisco.com>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.3 at mail.nic.cz
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/KpgtuIKesVFKJglDiHShn_O3C8g>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Instance data and annotations
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: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:10:08 -0000

On Mon, 2019-07-22 at 18:46 +0000, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
> I’ve had a chance to digest the question asked in the meeting about should the
> last-modified and entity-tag should be defined in the instance data draft.
> 
> I feel they should be removed and moved to a separate draft.  First, the draft
> doesn’t present a use case for these.  There is already an overall timestamp
> field, which provides last-modified for the set itself.  Finally, think of
> 8040 and yang-data.  Having to pull in the instance data draft just to get
> these annotations seems wasteful.

Agreed. I simply don't see entity-tag and last-modified as something generally
useful. Out of the nine use cases mentioned in the draft, only two of them (UC5
and UC7) can potentially make use of them.

Lada  

> 
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67