Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Thu, 01 March 2018 09:43 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 3372E1270A0 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 01:43:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 ZYCT1tZllFfv for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 01:43:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from trail.lhotka.name (trail.lhotka.name [77.48.224.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090701243F6 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 01:43:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix, from userid 109) id 8E69C1820413; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 10:43:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (nat-2.nic.cz [217.31.205.2]) by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A5AE2182040D; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 10:43:07 +0100 (CET)
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <87muztq87z.fsf@chopps.org>
References: <87woz2a3x1.fsf@chopps.org> <596f5e0b-301e-e102-bcae-c3421b24455b@cisco.com> <87lgfg9ded.fsf@chopps.org> <20180226.160921.622063322182936097.mbj@tail-f.com> <20180227083116.xtlnju34s7ksjntc@elstar.local> <1519720727.10739.1.camel@nic.cz> <87muztq87z.fsf@chopps.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, netmod@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 10:43:13 +0100
Message-ID: <87inagcery.fsf@nic.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/LJAOQsAKEeLUQ4_TZXgW6NaMj4M>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount
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: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 09:43:26 -0000

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> writes:

> Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 09:31 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 04:09:21PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Hi Rob,
>>> > >
>>> > > You do realize that no-one trying to actually deploy and run networks
>>> > > cares about live-discovery of different schema per datastore for the
>>> > > same mount point right? Like 99.999% of the clients know where things
>>> > > are supposed to reside and expect them to be there.
>>> >
>>> > But then why advertise anything at all?   We can do a *much* simpler
>>> > solution by just having the mountpoint extension, and nothing else.
>>> > Clients will know what to find anyway.
>>> >
>>>
>>> So it this a possible way out of the current situation? We publish a
>>> trimmed down document that just defines the mount point extension and
>>> we do an update of this document that adds all the details needed to
>>> obtain the schema information?
>>
>> I would say so. It would be immediately usable for the inline case.
>
> This still requires that we pull the routing NI work from the RFC ED
> queue, change normative text (the document specifically states that
> use-schema MUST be present, although it does mention that that may be
> relaxed in the future) as well as the examples listing the
> schema/modules, this is going to require at least another run through
> WGLC. It's slightly less obnoxious than the original proposal as its
> simply removing stuff and losing functionality vs. changing
> functionality.

As I already said, a reasonable alternative for me would be to proceed
with -08 and then do the YLbis and other changes as independent
work. This way, we could also hope in some feedback from NI/LNE
implementation.

Lada

>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>
>> Lada
>>
>>>
>>> /js
>>>
>

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67