Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00

Vladimir Vassilev <vladimir@transpacket.com> Wed, 06 December 2017 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <vladimir@transpacket.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 E5E1D128AB0 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 04:49:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 oUYwI5S-Epaw for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 04:49:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.transpacket.com (s91205186171.blix.com [91.205.186.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40668128954 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 04:49:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.transpacket.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E7A1500FFC; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 13:49:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail.transpacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.transpacket.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id QJWl4xrk017x; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 13:49:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.transpacket.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646231501003; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 13:49:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail.transpacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.transpacket.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id zWBnk8VC3w76; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 13:49:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.209.122] (s1853520235.blix.com [185.35.202.35]) by mail.transpacket.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 369D81500FFC; Wed, 6 Dec 2017 13:49:02 +0100 (CET)
To: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <10B5698A-BC7B-432E-A931-9069FA7BB03C@juniper.net> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9ACFA477@nkgeml513-mbs.china.huawei.com> <20171204.154448.2155397561484121188.mbj@tail-f.com> <9ce71a856a04495fa8d11fde4cc9c845@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
From: Vladimir Vassilev <vladimir@transpacket.com>
Message-ID: <8766f78c-2ff6-e948-f736-9a18507ec7b9@transpacket.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 13:49:01 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9ce71a856a04495fa8d11fde4cc9c845@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/NLRAFyhdH0-9hgZoQ4dzbFepSKA>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00
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, 06 Dec 2017 12:49:12 -0000

On 12/05/2017 10:06 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> Several comments on the YANG model within rfc7223bis.
>
> list interface {
>          key "name";
>          description
>            "The list of interfaces on the device.  The status of an interface is available in this list in the
>             operational state...
>
> A few questions on this.
> (a) The description of the list defines behaviors of various list nodes which might or might not exist in different NMDA datastores.  It also suggests when certain elements should be populated in various datastores.  Is the precedence being set that datastore specific behaviors may be placed into descriptions?  Is this type of documentation guidance something which explored in draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines?
> (b) Does status mean 'admin-status', 'oper-status' or both?  (I think 'oper-status'.)
> (c) should quotes be used around status?
>
> leaf name {,   leaf type { ....
> There are NETCONF specific behaviors in the definition of these two leaves.   It would be great to have this transport agnostic.  I realize that such a transport segmentation dissociates transport error handling from the nodes being handled.
>
> leaf admin-status {...
> incorrectly marked  as config false;
I think config false; is correct. The 'admin-status' leaf is a pre-NMDA 
workaround for IF-MIB implementations that coexist with the 
ietf-interfaces implementation e.g. reflect the value of ifAdminStatus 
independently configurable of the /interfaces/interface/enabled value. 
This is described in the description statement of 
/interfaces/interface/enabled.

This potentially could also be accomplished by using NMDA origin meta 
notation in operational showing /interfaces/interface/enabled is 
overwritten by origin that is not 'intended' e.g. or:origin=or:system or 
maybe custom origin or:origin=or-snmp:snmp?

IMO 'admin-status' is a too broad name for something that is only if-mib 
relevant. This is an example of something that can be solved with NMDA 
in a more general way without clogging the model with additional leaf 
but for backward compatibility and to avoid unnecessary confusion should 
be kept the way it is in draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00.

Vladimir

>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
>
>>> -----邮件原件-----
>>> 发件人: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Kent Watsen
>>> 发送时间: 2017年11月29日 3:29
>>> 收件人: netmod@ietf.org
>>> 抄送: netmod-chairs@ietf.org
>>> 主题: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> This starts a two-week working group last call on draft-ietf-netmod-
>> rfc7223bis-00.
>>> Please recall that this update's intention is to modify the YANG module to
>> be in line with the NMDA guidelines [1].  Reviewing the diff between the
>> two drafts [2] should reveal just this.
>>> The working group last call ends on December 12.
>>> Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
>>>
>>> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is
>> ready for publication", are welcome!
>>> This is useful and important, even from authors.
>>>
>>> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01
>>> [2]
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-00.tx
>>> t
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Netmod Chairs
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod