Re: [netmod] [netconf] Comments on draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-05

Rohit R Ranade <rohitrranade@huawei.com> Wed, 25 April 2018 04:22 UTC

Return-Path: <rohitrranade@huawei.com>
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 98C2C126CF6; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 21:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 tCFChLVAFuI7; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 21:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (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 169861205F0; Tue, 24 Apr 2018 21:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id D8B461B1EF079; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 05:22:34 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEMA421-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.154) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 05:22:35 +0100
Received: from DGGEMA502-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.62]) by dggema421-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.198.154]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:22:24 +0800
From: Rohit R Ranade <rohitrranade@huawei.com>
To: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] Comments on draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-05
Thread-Index: AdPcSwf++bO2gXLeQQmOiZdPyJhH8w==
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 04:22:24 +0000
Message-ID: <991B70D8B4112A4699D5C00DDBBF878A6B1E92F6@DGGEMA502-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.150.121]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_991B70D8B4112A4699D5C00DDBBF878A6B1E92F6DGGEMA502MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/RMqElEkyd4FI17GAJb12SdnERLI>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [netconf] Comments on draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-05
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, 25 Apr 2018 04:22:42 -0000

Hi All,

I plan to implement this draft and hence had some implementation related clarifications.


1.       I feel that there should be more text added about "origin" filtering mechanism. I am not clear about some aspects of origin filtering.

RFC 8342 : NMDA RFC provides the below example

<interfaces xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin"
                 or:origin="or:intended">
       <interface>
         <name>lo0</name>
         <description>loopback</description>
         <ip-address or:origin="or:system">127.0.0.1</ip-address>
         <ip-address>::1</ip-address>
       </interface>
     </interfaces>
If user provides <origin-filter> as "system" ONLY, then he will NOT get this record in output. Because the keys have originated from "intended" . Right ?
So, If user wants to get the system originated data, he MUST give all the origins in the <origin-filter> where the keys of the system data have originated from. Can you please confirm whether this is OK.


Another example given in RFC 8342 is as below:
     <interfaces xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin"
                 or:origin="or:intended">
       <interface or:origin="or:system">
         <name>lo0</name>
         <ip-address>127.0.0.1</ip-address>
         <ip-address>::1</ip-address>
       </interface>
     </interfaces>

?  Here keys are originated from "system", but it is under container of "intended". So if user gives "system" for "origin-filter", the output will still NOT have this instance output ?

?  Also the container is not defined as "presence" in C.3.  Interface Example, but still it has origin whether that is Ok ?

With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade

From: Rohit R Ranade
Sent: 24 April 2018 18:39
To: 'netmod@ietf.org'; <netmod@ietf.org>;
Subject: [netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-05

Hi All,

Please find some comments for the draft.


1.       If "config-filter" leaf is not given for <get-data> whether we can add explicit text that both config=true and config=false nodes will be selected.

2.       In the YANG module description for "config-filter" , also it is not clear about what happens if the leaf is not given in filter. I feel better we keep the style like RESTCONF RFC 8040 Section 4.8.1 , with "content" having  config/nonconfig/all

3.       Regarding the "max-depth" parameter, I feel we should take the text about how "depth" is calculated for each node from RESTCONF RFC from Section 4.8.2 and add it to this draft. What will be depth of parent keys which are auto-selected when selecting on child nodes. Maybe some example regarding using of "max-depth" will be helpful.

4.       For the <get-data> filter mechanism, since there are 4 filters (filter-spec and config-filter and max-depth and with-defaults), whether we can mention that all these filters are AND'ed. Also whether there is a suggested order to apply filter ? I think "max-depth" filter has to be applied last. Others maybe any order is OK.

5.       negated-origin-filter : Regarding this I feel we can add a sentence as to when user should use "negated-origin-filter" , as "origin-filter" also can be used for this purpose.

With Regards,
Rohit R Ranade