Re: [netmod] Confirming draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-03 consensus call

[Alex Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I was not at the IETF meeting unfortunately.

I see that the technical issues raised in the WGLC have been fixed, which is good.

However I still have reservations about the utility of the proposed standard. It seems to me like a solution in search of a problem, and I can't understand why it should be pushed forward to an RFC. Maybe there is some context I am missing. The use-cases that have been described to me so far seem like they would be better served by a client-side mechanism. Perhaps the client-side data store can still be modelled in YANG, but in that case, I think the document should say so.

I asked why the server should hold the data. The reason I am given is "so that clients can read it." Why is the data not on the client in the first place?
The client can make modifications to the data, so that the client can read it back later. Why does the client need to store these modifications outside of itself?

I am told this is a general-purpose tool. In that case, I would like to see at least two or three separate use-cases so that I can be sure this is actually a *useful general-purpose abstraction*, and not something specific to the one (or zero!) use-cases the authors seem to envision. I am aware that the cost of creating bad standards can be quite high, if the next person who wants some YANG module metadata feels obligated to use the existing tag mechanism instead of something new, but finds it doesn't quite fit their needs. See also https://blog.codinghorror.com/rule-of-three/ and https://www.sandimetz.com/blog/2016/1/20/the-wrong-abstraction

I think the draft could also do with describing how this module is supposed to be used. A YANG module in isolation means nothing. Most of the YANG modules I am familiar with are to define configuration and/or state data to be stored on a network element or a provisioning/orchestration system, and accessed over NETCONF. I believe it is implicit that unless otherwise specified, YANG modules are intended for NETCONF use, but I am unclear on which kinds of NETCONF servers should implement this module.

Perhaps my opinion also carries less weight, as someone who's only on the mailing list and didn't actually attend the IETF meeting.



________________________________________
From: netmod <[e-mail]> on behalf of joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 November 2018 5:46 a.m.
To: NETMOD Working Group
Subject: [netmod] Confirming draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-03 consensus call

During the Thursday nov 8 session of netmod, we asked if there were any objections to the publication of the Draft-03 version of draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags which addresses comments and concerns raised during the WGLC. In the meeting there were none. This commences a comment period to confirm that call. As this follows closely on the heels of the IETF 103 meeting we’ll let the call run through Monday the 26th of November.

https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-03.txt


Thanks
Joel
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod