Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> writes:

> Folks, the more formats there are, the less interoperability we
> get. If there are multiple formats, is there a mandatory to implement
> format? Does the mandatory to implement format depend on the protocol
> that is being used?

This looks nice in theory but let me remind you about the case of
choosing a mandatory-to-implement encoding for RESTCONF.

The protocols are intended to work with devices of vastly differing
capabilities and quite often there is no one-size-fits-all choice.

If a device based on a restricted platform cannot implement YANG Patch
but does JSON Patch [RFC 6902] instead, it is perfectly fine with me - and
certainly more useful than providing no diff at all.

Lada

>
> I prefer one format or if necessary I am fine with one mandatory to
> implement format. An open ended collection of implementation specific
> formats is super flexible but defeats the purpose of a standard,
> namely interoperability.
>
> /js
>
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 05:41:22PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
>> We agree that the diff-format should be client-selectable, modulo what the server supports.  yang-patch and edit-config both are viable.  Should we document them both?
>> 
>> That said, since neither edit-config nor yang-patch are diffing formats, so much as formats for converting one data tree to another, would it make sense to define an actual diffing format?  I would think that a diff would provide both values, not just a new value.
>> 
>> Kent // contributor
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: netmod <[e-mail]> on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>
>> Organization: CZ.NIC
>> Date: Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 1:11 PM
>> To: Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>> 
>> On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 14:17 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
>> > 
>> > On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
>> > > > On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> > > > > Phil Shafer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > > > > > Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
>> > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dclemm-2Dnetmod-2Dnmda-2Ddiff-2D00&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=7s6VdzzH9Ol3BOCbVLBarBrQ5fD0vTt8k_I2KDEN97c&s=gQWJtjc_2EF3QgRvABgZKsjqzuIw9yUq_xee6aFJOcw&e=
>> > > > > > [I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here, but ...]
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > Can we ensure this model contains a "format" leaf in the RPC's input
>> > > > > > so that future (and proprietary) formats can be supported?   That
>> > > > > > leaf can be an identityref that defaults to yang-patch.
>> > > > > I think this is a good idea.  I would prefer the edit-config format
>> > > > > over YANG patch for describing a diff.  The edit-config format is more
>> > > > > suited for this purpose imo.
>> > > > +1
>> > > > 
>> > > > I would like something closer to edit-config to be available via
>> > > > RESTCONF as well.
>> > > YANG Patch is IMO better because it clearly separates the target for the
>> > > edits
>> > > from the new content.
>> > > In edit-config these two are mixed together.
>> > Yes, that is primarily why I prefer the edit-config.  I perceive that it 
>> > is a denser and more efficient format.  I think that it is both easier 
>> > to construct (when diffing two trees) and also more efficient to apply 
>> > when generating an updated tree.
>> 
>> Except for certain corner cases, for example if two trees differ only in the
>> value of a single leaf but this leaf happens to be a list key.
>> 
>> Lada
>> 
>> > 
>> > Thanks,
>> > Rob
>> > 
>> > 
>> > > That being said, I support specifying format/media-type and having
>> > > potentially
>> > > multiple options.
>> > > 
>> > > Lada
>> > > 
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > Rob
>> > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > > /martin
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > netmod mailing list
>> > > > > [e-mail]
>> > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=7s6VdzzH9Ol3BOCbVLBarBrQ5fD0vTt8k_I2KDEN97c&s=RVJcg5pzHW-zi1OboCL4SX2huW9euHiVRSCor9n_APQ&e=
>> > > > > .
>> > > > > 
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > netmod mailing list
>> > > > [e-mail]
>> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=7s6VdzzH9Ol3BOCbVLBarBrQ5fD0vTt8k_I2KDEN97c&s=RVJcg5pzHW-zi1OboCL4SX2huW9euHiVRSCor9n_APQ&e=
>> -- 
>> Ladislav Lhotka
>> Head, CZ.NIC Labs
>> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=7s6VdzzH9Ol3BOCbVLBarBrQ5fD0vTt8k_I2KDEN97c&s=RVJcg5pzHW-zi1OboCL4SX2huW9euHiVRSCor9n_APQ&e=
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

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