Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-01 (until 2015-06-29)

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Wed, 17 June 2015 13:13 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DCFD1A914F for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 06:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.361
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.361 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_CZ=0.445, HOST_EQ_CZ=0.904, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 7ujQy0e8DA1B for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 06:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDA9A1A9149 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 06:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from birdie.labs.nic.cz (unknown [195.113.220.110]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D59DA1813D2; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:13:46 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1434546826; bh=q7RJLXxt0e17jYitSoL4DGm2E2jm115rLY73ZNbeuxo=; h=From:Date:To; b=wV6jQDC9R7/q/upIuqsgbKEDW5ZX33QggJ5TUg2QAoWYADyR5W2zvT8j8nBYxR7zS mpB9EkOLflIBjYwGtEumUsimztLFbF4YKJpyijNwQBK48zBNG9YrJLpW9BdkXwb/Ma BezHCHfKrK+Nyo39B9v1Y01BG7A/eyo+4PXeKyHo=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20150617125009.GA21463@elstar.local>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:13:48 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1727EA47-E767-48F1-BB47-D2C13C16EE5D@nic.cz>
References: <D1A4CEBA.B22F8%kwatsen@juniper.net> <20150617.095439.2211831130594238981.mbj@tail-f.com> <m2vbem4ryj.fsf@nic.cz> <20150617.121216.1211666276307602571.mbj@tail-f.com> <7E9BC65B-8A73-4352-87C7-8A826EFAC45B@nic.cz> <20150617115109.GC21292@elstar.local> <4D6394A6-06D1-4275-8151-E1C34DB20965@nic.cz> <20150617125009.GA21463@elstar.local>
To: Jürgen Schönwälder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Qm4jdHPtQdPJfMQ3guXjK7BIyH8>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-01 (until 2015-06-29)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 17 Jun 2015 13:13:52 -0000

> On 17 Jun 2015, at 14:50, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 02:34:52PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> 
>>> On 17 Jun 2015, at 13:51, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 01:41:56PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Well, but it is exactly what Kent objected against. It is the requirement to support “old clients” that causes the trouble here (and elsewhere). If client A sets “inactive” somewhere, then the datastore semantics will change also for client B that doesn’t understand “inactive” and may be wondering why the server ignores his edits.
>>>> 
>>>> I understand (although RFC 6241 doesn’t say it explicitly) that, unlike YANG extensions, a NETCONF capability advertised by the server can be mandatory for the client in the sense that it has to understand and honour it.
>>> 
>>> There is no way for a client to tell whether a certain capability URI
>>> (it has never seen before) is mandatory to understand or not. In fact,
>> 
>> So it means that, e.g. the annotations from
>> 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kwatsen-conditional-enablement-00
>> 
>> cannot be safely used by the server even after advertising them via :conditional-enablement capability.
> 
> Yes, advertisement is not sufficient.
> 
>>> Without further protocol support to negotiate annotations, I think
>>> annotations must be limited to things that can be safely ignored by a
>>> client. I have not read the I-D yet but I would expect that it should
>>> say something like that. ;-)
>> 
>> But it’s not a specific problem of this draft, it would simply mean that annotations that cannot be ignored cannot be used at all, no matter what. However, some annotations that have been proposed (and probably used in the wild) are of that sort.
>> 
> 
> They cannot be used safely until there is an annotation negotiation
> mechanism, or as Martin indicated, a way for a client to explicitely
> enable the functionality associated with certain annotations.

Even this breaks down if an annotation has global side effects. This actually seems to be true for the whole idea of a client cherry-picking from the capabilities (and YANG modules) advertised by the server.

Lada

> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C