Re: [netmod] [Netconf] magic leaf 'type' in IETF interfaces

Ladislav Lhotka <> Wed, 19 December 2018 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1812212867A; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 06:16:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZGmtvwF9FbIB; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 06:16:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C0631200B3; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 06:16:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 109) id 53BB3182015D; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 15:25:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36C8D182015B; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 15:25:04 +0100 (CET)
From: Ladislav Lhotka <>
To: Jan Lindblad <>, Andy Bierman <>
Cc: "netconf\" <>, "netmod\" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mail-Followup-To: Jan Lindblad <>, Andy Bierman <>, "netconf\" <>, "netmod\" <>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 15:16:10 +0100
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Netconf] magic leaf 'type' in IETF interfaces
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 14:16:17 -0000

Jan Lindblad <> writes:

> Hi,
>>> While I agree with Martin, in our systems we have a number of places, where the system does create configuration in running, due to
>>> different levels of automation and autonomous algorithms kick-in
>>> the created config needs to be possible to be further modified by the operator
>>> the created config needs to be referenced from operator created config
>>> the created config is not always ephemeral, it might need to be part of backup/restore
>> This is only a sampling from "the list of excuses". I have heard many more. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, however. If we want to build automation based on sound theory, clearly separating the orders from managers from a system's own operational view is key, IMO. Reliability, security, accountability are growing in importance, and they all play in this direction.
>> We may not need to standardize rules to outlaw the above; the market will take care of that. What we need to ensure is that it is possible to be standards compliant without having to implement design excuses like these.
>> NMDA has a lot of room for proprietary mechanisms for converting <running> to <intended>.
>> Many times the features desired by engineers exceed the capabilities of YANG, such as
>> a dynamic default leaf.  YANG allows a simple constant, and no business logic to pick the default.
>> This is a very valid use of "server auto-magic".
>> Maybe a future version of YANG can improve the client visibility into this "auto-magic"
> As you say, this is not uncommon. I usually recommend to leave out any
> default statement, and write in the description what happens if this
> leaf isn't set. The operator can then override the default by giving a
> value.

Anyway, this is not a case where the server writes something on its own
to a configuration datastore.

> While some more advanced features for default values may be of some
> utility, the simplicity of YANG is also important. We don't want to
> make the YANG models -- the interface contracts -- the new place for
> all business logic.



> /jan
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list

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