Re: [netmod] Instance-data-format - shall we define etag and last-modified annotation ?

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 7:24 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Balázs,
>
> I am not sure these belongs to the data types collection. If these
> annotations are a per datastore properties or per configuration
> datastore properties (I am not sure these properties make a lot of
> sense for dynamically changing data in <operational>, or these
> properties only make sense for config true nodes, more discussion
> needed I guess), then the logical place would be to define them would
> be where the datastores are defined.
>
> I understand the timing concern but my preference is to workout what
> these annotations really are in an NMDA world and in a second step to
> figure out a way to define them in a reasonable amount of time.
>
>
This work needs a lot more thought because this WG is sort of abusing these
fields,
intended for HTTP caching. The values are associated with a representation
of a response
to a request for some portion of the datastore contents.  E.g., a
representation in XML must be a different
ETag than a JSON representation (of the exact same datastore contents).

I suggest new meta-data be defined that has semantics specific to datastore
contents, not
the HTTP representation of the response.

IMO this meta-data is not really needed inside an instance file, but if
included, then the values
should be associated with the representation (the instance file) and not
the datastores.


/js
>


Andy


>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 02:11:23PM +0000, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> > Hello Jürgen,
> > Could the etag and last-modified annotations be moved to 6991bis?
> > Regards Balazs
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: 2019. július 22., hétfő 16:15
> > To: Balázs Lengyel <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] Instance-data-format - shall we define etag and
> > last-modified annotation ?
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 07:23:59PM +0000, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Restconf (rfc8040) defined to useful bits of metadata about a YANG
> > > defined
> > > datastore: entity-tag and the last-modified timestamp.
> > >
> > > These can be very useful in instance data sets, however Restconf
> > > defines an encoding for these (as part of the http headers) that can
> > > not be used in instance-data-sets.
> >
> > This may actually point out a flaw or omission of RFC 8527. RFC 8040
> defines
> > an entity-tag for its "unified" datastore and it says "if the RESTCONF
> > server is co-located with a NETCONF server, then this entity-tag MUST be
> for
> > the "running" datastore". So it is a bit unclear what happens with other
> > NMDA datastores and I did not quickly find something in RFC 8527. (For
> > example, can have a distinct etag for <startup/>?
> >
> > > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-03#section-7.2
> > >
> > <
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-03#
> > > section-7.2>     defines metadata annotations for these two, that can
> be
> > > used in instance data
> > >
> > >   md:annotation entity-tag {
> > >       type string;
> > >       description "Used to encode the entity-tag .";
> > >     }
> > >     md:annotation last-modified {
> > >       type yang:date-and-time;
> > >       description "Contains the date and time when the annotated
> > >         instance was last modified (or created).";
> > >     }
> > >
> > > In order to be able to include this data, the annotations need to be
> > > defined in some YANG module.
> > >
> > > The question has been raised whether
> > >
> > > 1.  these annotations should be defined in the ietf-yang-instance-data
> > > module as it needs them, as that is open or
> > > 2.  the annotations should be defined in another draft in a separate
> > > YANG module as any other annotation
> > >
> > > The first option is better because the instance-data needs these
> > > annotations, and at this point we see no other user for the
> > > annotation, and in this case the ongoing instance data draft will
> > > define it
> > >
> > > The second option is better because, if later there are other users
> > > for these annotations, it might be strange to reference the
> > > ietf-yang-instance-data module. Also why provide special treatment to
> > > these
> > > 2 annotations?
> > >
> > > The authors support option 1 and don't have the time to start a new
> > > draft to define these annotations.
> > >
> > > On IETF105 in the room there was more support for option 1.
> > >
> > > Please indicate if you have an opinion about the choice of 1 or 2
> >
> > Version -03 only defines these annotations but does not do anything
> specific
> > with these definitions. So if the annotations are defined elsewhere, the
> ID
> > is as complete as before. If entity-tag and last-modified are actually
> seen
> > as datastore properties, it would be nice to have them defined in the
> NMDA
> > documents (and it seems we overlooked this when we did the NMDA work).
> >
> > I think this needs a bit of discussion whether these are actually seen as
> > datastore properties. But in this case, I would lean towards option 2.
> >
> > /js
> >
> > --
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> > Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>