Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Thu, 08 February 2018 18:40 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 51B0312D7EB; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:40:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 APyLC4XmCMYn; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:40:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E9ED1242F7; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:40:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (h-80-27.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [212.85.80.27]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4E62A1AE046C; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 19:40:31 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 19:40:31 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20180208.194031.269741945590474706.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: andy@yumaworks.com
Cc: rwilton@cisco.com, netconf@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHR95zL=AZ-LLq_1FsCff9dgUKP5_33uY7W7OMd8tdfb3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABCOCHR34ovCHumyTKXOYzJcU3WM1kt-EnpxxtGLS2kLUPtECA@mail.gmail.com> <20180207.192803.834988416883038576.mbj@tail-f.com> <CABCOCHR95zL=AZ-LLq_1FsCff9dgUKP5_33uY7W7OMd8tdfb3w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/N8P8LnC1wBUC0RmjSsuxQ9g3B-M>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Netconf] LC of NDMA NETCONF/RESTCONF drafts
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, 08 Feb 2018 18:40:34 -0000

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote:

> It should be clear in some draft how basic-mode applies to origin=default
> within <operational>.
> 
> Applying sec 2 of 6243...
> 
> config=true:
> 
> If basic-mode=report-all then origin=default will never be present

Note that origin=default can be used for more than just static YANG
"default" statement defaults.  But then RFC 6243 talks about "schema
defaults", and presumably this includes dynamic defaults, even if they
are defined in prose in a description statement.

So I think your statement above is correct, since the default value is
present even in <running> and <intended>.

> If basic-mode=trim then origin=default is only possible if the value-in-use
> is the YANG default

Yes, for the same reason as above.

> If basic-mode=explicit then origin=default is only possible if the
> configured value was not
> explicitly set by a client.

Yes.

> Sec 2.3.1 is not clear if the YANG default
> value is relevant or not.
> It could be that if the configured value not explicitly set, then any
> value-in-use (not just the
> YANG default) could be tagged origin=default.

Yes I think so, as per above.

> config=false:

Note that the origin annotation is not present on config false nodes.

> report-all: default ignored, no nodes treated as default

Yes.

> trim: node removed if value=YANG default

Yes.

> explicit: all config=false nodes are set by the server, so no nodes treated
> as default

Yes.

> This draft makes with-defaults mandatory-to-implement.
> It is a SHOULD implement now.  (I approve!).

But is this what the WG wants?  (side note; it would be good with a
"if-module-implemented" statement, similar to if-feature.  as it is
today, if we want with-defaults to be optional we'd have to define an
additional feature, which really is unnecessary)

> The with-defaults capability MUST be advertised by the NMDA server,
> including
> the basic-mode parameter. The also-supported parameter MAY be included.
> 
> Is it possible for report-all-tagged to apply to nodes that are learned
> (i.e., not origin=default)?

No, I think that if report-all-tagged is requested, you'd get both the
"default" attribute and origin=default together.



/martin