Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

On 27/07/2016 20:44, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
>
> From: netmod <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Mahesh Jethanandani 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 9:07 PM
> To: Xufeng Liu <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: netmod WG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF 
> YANG Model Structure
>
>     Robert mentions IS-IS, and if I look at OSPF, I see a clear
>     separation of rw and ro nodes.
>
>
> Right - and this separation is based on the routing and routing-state 
> split in the ietf-routing-cfg model. In general, ietf-routing-cfg 
> specifies that all control plane protocol YANG models should adapt 
> this structure. Anyone who thinks collapsing all the models one 
> config/state tree is simply a matter of moving a few counters should 
> taking a better look at the existing drafts. I outlined the options in 
> the E-mail thread prior to IETF 96.  Now, with the context of IETF 96 
> behind us, I believe more NETMOD participants will understand the 
> options. To review the options specified in the previous E-mail thread.
>
>    1. Do nothing - allow them proceed as they are with multiple ways of
>        representing the applied configuration. This would provide 
> visibility to
>        the data independent of whether or not the device supported the 
> revised
>        data-stores supporting implicit retrieval of the applied 
> configuration.
>    2. Prune out the redundant data nodes except those required as list
>         keys, etc, since they can be obtained from the applied state 
> data store.
>   3. #2 plus collapse the config (read-write) and  system-state
>        (read-only) into common containers. No more branching of
>        <model-name>-config and <model-name>-state at the top level of 
> the model.
>
> Prior to IETF 96, I don’t believe we had selected a direction. 
> However, I believe we agreed on option #1 in order to allow the 
> publication of these models within the next year. We’d still be able 
> to avail the benefits of applied vs intended configuration on network 
> devices supporting these data stores.
My take is that I think that the leaning at IETF was towards 2.

I.e. I think that we ruled out 1.  I.e. the models must not have 
separate nodes to represent applied configuration because that will be 
solved by the datastore solution.

But it feels a bit inconsistent that the models don't need to have 
explicit leaves for foo vs foo-applied (because it will be solved by 
datastores), but the models do still need explicit leaves for foo vs 
foo-state (even though this could/should also be solved by an 
operational state datastore - noting that both draft-schoenw and 
draft-wilton propose a solution to this problem).

My preference, if we can get quick consensus would be to do 3, or if 
consensus is not possible for 3, then we should fallback to doing 2, as 
the next best option.  But whatever the decision, I favour agreeing a 
direction quickly so that the other WGs know what to put in the RFCs.

Thanks,
Rob

>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
>
>
>>     On Jul 27, 2016, at 11:22 AM, Xufeng Liu
>>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     The assumption of “I suspect that all the routing models will be
>>     structured similarly” is not correct. Very few models in routing
>>     area structure this way.
>>     Regards,
>>     - Xufeng
>>     *From:*netmod [mailto:[e-mail]]*On Behalf
>>     Of*Robert Wilton
>>     *Sent:*Wednesday, July 27, 2016 1:05 PM
>>     *To:*Kent Watsen <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; netmod WG <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>     *Subject:*Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended
>>     IETF YANG Model Structure
>>
>>     On 26/07/2016 21:36, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>>     <Rob Wilton writes>
>>>
>>>     So my thinking is that if we can't merge "foo-state" into "foo"
>>>     then instead we should have consistent rules that explicitly
>>>     state that for all IETF models "foo" and "foo-state" are
>>>     separate trees with a consistent naming convention and
>>>     structure.  That should hopefully allow tooling to
>>>     programmatically relate the two separate trees together.  It may
>>>     give a path to allow "foo-state" to be merged into "foo" in
>>>     future, but once IETF has standardized 600+ models with separate
>>>     sub-trees, I cannot see that they would get merged back together
>>>     again.
>>>
>>>     What other alternatives are available?  As a WG we need to tell
>>>     the other WGs how the IETF YANG models should be structured.
>>>
>>>     In short, unfortunately I think that we have probably already
>>>     missed the opportunity to merge "foo" and "foo-state" subtrees
>>>     together ...
>>>
>>>
>>>     </Rob Wilton>
>>>     Firstly, I’m trying to get a sense of how big a problem this
>>>     foo/foo-state thing is.  [Note: by foo-state, I’m only referring
>>>     to counters, not opstate].
>>     RW:
>>     By counters, I think that we also mean any config false nodes
>>     that don't directly represent "applied configuration", right?
>>     E.g. is an interface operationally up or down.
>>
>>
>>>        I know about RFC 7223, which was done out of consideration
>>>     for system-generated interfaces, but how many other such models
>>>     are there envisioned to be?
>>     RW:
>>     - Any models that augment RFC 7223 and have config false nodes
>>     will be impacted.
>>     - I thought that quite a lot of other IETF models that are in the
>>     process of being standardized have a top level split between
>>     "foo" and "foo-state".  E.g the ISIS model
>>     (draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-08) has this split.  I suspect
>>     that all the routing models will be structured similarly.
>>     - Although it is perhaps worth pointing out that I think that the
>>     OpenConfig modules effectively have exactly this same issue (e.g.
>>     they have a combined interfaces tree keyed by config true
>>     leaves), and they pragmatically just ignore the issue of system
>>     created interface entries.
>>
>>
>>>      Is this issue currently blocking models from progressing, or
>>>     are we getting ourselves wrapped around a hypothetical?
>>     RW:
>>     I think that it is blocking models from progressing.
>>
>>     The current guidance for "intended vs applied" is clear.  I.e.
>>     there must not be "config false" leaves in the IETF YANG data
>>     models to represent "applied config".
>>
>>     But there is no clear guidance for the rest of operational state
>>     that isn't applied config.  The other WGs need clear guidance
>>     (effectively now) to ensure that they can start publishing models
>>     as RFCs.
>>
>>
>>
>>>       If RFC 7223 is an outlier, then we can address it as a special
>>>     case (perhaps via the related-state/related-config YANG
>>>     annotations).  What do you think?
>>     RW:
>>     Personally, I would like one common convention that applies to
>>     all IETF YANG models.
>>
>>     Idealistically I would like foo and foo-state to be merged
>>     because I think that will make the models easier to use and
>>     maintain in the long term, but I don't know if we are just too
>>     late to go in that direction.  It seems to me that the NETMOD WG
>>     really should try to come to a decision quite quickly on this,
>>     but I don't know how to encourage that.  A virtual interim on
>>     just this topic perhaps?
>>
>>
>>>     Next, regarding paths forward (assuming 7223 is not an outlier),
>>>     I’m thinking the opposite.  I’m quite sure that we would never
>>>     merge the 600+ models with separate subtrees back together
>>>     again.  So I’m thinking we immediately merge foo and foo-state
>>>     in all active YANG models (so that the YANG “conceptual” models
>>>     are stable and good) *and* then we use your idea to
>>>     programmatically generate the “foo-state” tree, presumably only
>>>     when needed.  This foo-state tree could be generated offline by
>>>     tools and provided as a second YANG module in drafts.  In this
>>>     way, servers (opstate aware or not) can advertise if clients can
>>>     access the foo-state tree (an opstate-aware server may still
>>>     advertise it for business reasons, and it can ‘deprecate’ the
>>>     tree when no longer needed).   We could do the same without
>>>     tools today by just using a feature statement on, for instance,
>>>     the interfaces-state container, but I like pushing for tooling
>>>     upfront so that we’re guaranteed mergeability later.  Thoughts?
>>     RW:
>>     So the generated "foo-state" tree would contain a copy of all
>>     config false nodes in the YANG schema and a "config false copy"
>>     of any config true nodes in the YANG schema that are required to
>>     provide parental structure for the descendant config false nodes.
>>     - The Xpath expressions would also need to be adjusted, and
>>     possibly some of those might break (or need to be fixed by hand).
>>     - Groupings might be a problem, but potentially they could be
>>     expanded.
>>
>>     Technically this solution might work, but is it possible to get
>>     everyone to agree that this is the right direction to go in
>>     before we spend time on this?
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     Rob
>>
>>
>>
>>>     Kent // as a contributor
>>>
>>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     netmod mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
>     Mahesh Jethanandani
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod