Re: [netmod] Schema-mount question: Augmentation to the Mounted Module

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 14 June 2017 11:43 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 4121A12EBB0 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 04:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 FWvfyEmVM1-g for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 04:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy10.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy10-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.20.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1546912EBB1 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 04:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw3 (unknown [10.0.90.84]) by gproxy10.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D23E11405C2 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 05:43:18 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw3 with id YbjE1v00g2SSUrH01bjHw6; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 05:43:18 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=VKStp5HX c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=LWSFodeU3zMA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=Cs676VMd2xgWf8Qfb7oA:9 a=Ryb1F5nhlJBJkL1Z:21 a=dIGVSRpketvDe-Da:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=6kGIvZw6iX1k4Y-7sg4_:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Cvkbk2W7QqZPV/Uvm03I3BM9Ewq71bubAb5GJtZjRbU=; b=YbOcePaaVUh4wNUEcvbuhS6IPc 5mDwmENYc1DDpoC3qIlxoCutLHPtqWpR7H44xHB5GleCP9WcKHzdDETYu8SVm21wUHEqcLfWBdfFp MmO6joS+FHg4D5as4p0dvY5qt;
Received: from pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.84.20]:53154 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1dL6he-0005zi-NW; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 05:43:14 -0600
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
References: <01b901d2e483$792089f0$6b619dd0$@gmail.com> <m2wp8ehl81.fsf@nic.cz>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <bfed97ed-e5b5-2f20-a15d-d8761eda8d36@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 07:43:08 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m2wp8ehl81.fsf@nic.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.84.20
X-Exim-ID: 1dL6he-0005zi-NW
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.84.20]:53154
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 4
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/R2umT6MLbrpUXK0u_v3Xf79KlVA>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Schema-mount question: Augmentation to the Mounted Module
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, 14 Jun 2017 11:43:27 -0000

Hi,

(speaking as contributor...)


On 6/14/2017 7:17 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi Xufeng,
>
> please see my answers inline.
>
> Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Lada,
>>
>>  
>>
>> We have got two questions on how to specify the module entries in a schema:
>>
>>  
>>
>> 1.	Are augmentations of parent modules inherited when augmented module
>> is listed in schema-mounts schema?
>>
>> For example, ietf-ospf module augments ietf-routing. When we include
>> ietf-routing to the schema entry, is ietf-ospf automatically included?
> No, you also have to include "ietf-ospf" in the "module" list inside the
> corresponding "schema" entry, exactly as you do in the top level YANG
> library, otherwise ietf-ospf won't be mounted.

I agree.  The draft should have text that makes this explicit.

>>  
>>
>> 2.	When we have ietf-yang-library mounted under a parent (LNE), does
>> ietf-yang-library have to contain exactly the same list of Yang modules as
>> the list contained in the "schema" entry under "schema-mount"?
> I am not sure I understand but do you mean an LNE mounted schema defined via
> the "use-schema" case that also includes ietf-yang-library? This is a
> corner case we probably haven't thought about but it IMO doesn't make
> any sense to do so because the applicable YANG library that counts is
> inside the "schema" entry. Martin, should we address this anomaly?

I think this is a very real scenario for LNE.  Consider a 'host' system
that allows read only views of the LNE and wants the benefit of
"use-schema".  In this case, library under the mount point is still
needed for client access within the mounted LNE. 

It seems to me that in this case the mounted library module data must
exactly match what is listed in the corresponding "schema" entry under
"schema-mount" in order to ensure deterministic client views/behavior. 
Again, I think this should be made explicit in the draft.

> BTW, I think that normally LNE schema is supposed to be mounted using the
> "inline" case, and then of course ietf-yang-library is required but
> there is no "schema" entry under "schema-mounts" to worry about.
Both inline and non-inline LNE usage is expected in real systems...

Lou
> Lada
>
>> For example, ietf-ospf module augments ietf-routing. When we mount
>> ietf-routing ietf-yang-library to LNE, should we list ietf-ospf in the mount
>> module list? And also in ietf-yang-library?
>>
>>  
>>
>> It would be great if these can be clarified.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> - Xufeng
>>
>>  
>>