Re: [netmod] Comments on NMDA-04

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Wed, 20 September 2017 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.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 1DA7E13422F for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 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_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 zce24jwuy-lI for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3011413422D for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1369; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1505923077; x=1507132677; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fl2dvEjwIvbVJKSYI9sqEizSMucbGo93a0nW4Q59B0M=; b=Sd7hwORVZyUSWJHEehvXQtVA1lp9N1CyXS1OkL+vfSz4V4qurxd4ByTi dQFnwx5V3NmnWqsATpaBXjWktD4HKGNsHlVgSwcp/3QIfFhwoZ7xUMtCQ vMnEVbLM00RfZoWVDHtXnkbRjGPlWqe1BByQtjQcbpXaWX8OCZLD+l8pj M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B8AQD2jsJZ/xbLJq1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBhD5uhByLFJBLK5Y1ggQKI4UYAoUnFQECAQEBAQEBAWsohRkBBSM?= =?us-ascii?q?PAQVBEAsYAgIRFQICVwYBDAgBAYovEKgFgieLHQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBGQWBDoIdg1OBZCuCfYQ2gQSCVIJgBaETh12MeoIThWqDWockjWOHV4E5NSK?= =?us-ascii?q?BDTIhCBwVh2Y/hxgrghUBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,421,1500940800"; d="scan'208";a="657612273"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Sep 2017 15:57:55 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.66] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-66.cisco.com [10.63.23.66]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8KFvs5Q013706; Wed, 20 Sep 2017 15:57:55 GMT
To: Balazs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>, netmod@ietf.org
References: <9ec6b2e4-36a7-87e6-59fa-828855235835@ericsson.com> <20170914.163239.143365521945928900.mbj@tail-f.com> <0605fab0-f879-e02d-4858-52a247571cb8@ericsson.com>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <38bf1069-c21e-c160-c5e9-9d70dd9d990f@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 16:57:54 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0605fab0-f879-e02d-4858-52a247571cb8@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/LSEkdXbL_8s5N_VuTzCDHcdRpUU>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Comments on NMDA-04
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 Sep 2017 15:57:59 -0000

Hi Balazs,


On 14/09/2017 16:44, Balazs Lengyel wrote:
> See below !
>
>
> On 2017-09-14 16:32, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
>>> CH 4.4.)  "Validation is performed on the contents of <intended>."
>>> This to me means that default data is not considered at validation
>> Note that RFC 7950, section 6.4.1, says:
>>
>>     In the accessible tree, all leafs and leaf-lists with default values
>>     in use exist (see Sections 7.6.1 and 7.7.2).
>>
>> So defaults are taken into account when intended is validated.
> BALAZS: Yes the two seem to contradict each other. This can be 
> understood in your way, however the current text is not clear enough. 
> I would add:
> Validation is performed on the contents of <intended> (EXTENDED WITH 
> DEFAULT CONFIGURATION).

I've slightly reworked the text on intended.  It was sent to the alias 
yesterday on the thread <running> vs <intended>. The new text on 
intended states "<intended> must always be a 'valid configuration data 
tree' as defined in Section 8.1 of [RFC7950]. "

This implicitly means that it must consider default values, just like 
validation in any other configuration datastore is required to do.

Please can you check the proposed text on intended to see if it 
sufficient to resolve this issue. 
https://github.com/netmod-wg/datastore-dt/issues/9

Thanks,
Rob