Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf
"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> Wed, 15 September 2021 09:57 UTC
Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.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 3FC073A0BDC for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 02:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=JW2HsNR7; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=t0zn3hlD
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 bsPyG8dJ3PDn for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 02:56:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BDD03A0BDA for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 02:56:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=206332; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1631699819; x=1632909419; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=7P2L6JkSt+uVpXrgsMxIemoWP7EVlyXf3TckM6YOPyU=; b=JW2HsNR7pk1YzIx6JcbzdcBqFX8hpkAzV8MEBT4JqAVWnUMqr3ESNKPT ygrQ33tKCvud3qH72ULd/wQob6gUbLi27jxdoEqAVuhI7QqpsBnVlYZf6 NbaQVKKt0EMT7IG4r+/DfvXb28z7J/03jIdM90lb2ZLxgcTcjCse6pF1N w=;
X-IPAS-Result: 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
IronPort-PHdr: A9a23:qvSdvRDXhu5Gk+RgBEGPUyQVihdPi9zP1kY9+4cigq1JaKe4uZ/lO R+X6fZsiQrPWoPWo7JBhvHNuq/tEWoH/d6asX8EfZANMn1NicgfkwE6RsLQD0r9Ia37cikzA 8NYV0Qj9Ha+YgBZHc/kbAjUpXu/pTcZBhT4M19zIeL4Uo7fhsi6zaa84ZrWNg5JnzG6J7h1K UbekA==
IronPort-Data: A9a23:fjFM76PTMyNyNB/vrR0GlcFynXyQoLVcMsEvi/4bfWQNrUokgzZUm mIWW2yDPfiJMWqneo92aYyz8UgEv57QyNcxSXM5pCpnJ55oRWUpJjg4wmPYZX76whjrFRo/h ykmh1qpwPkcFhcwnD/1WlTahSQ6hfzgqobUUraeY3ggHFI8E0/NtDo68wIHqt8w6TSGK1vlV ePa+6Uz73f8hlaYmkpNg06ygEsHUMba4Vv0jXRiDRx/h2IyolFOZH4pyQ5dGFOjKmVcNrbSq +8uV9hV9EuBl/smIovNfroW7iTmT5aKVTVihEa6VIC+vTNT/h0C0Z8WNdk3bkBnhBqWgMpIn YAlWZyYEW/FP4XFnOAbFhJfCSw7bOtN+aTMJj60tsn7I0/uKiS3ha4wShhte9RCq46bAkkWn RAcACoSbxSfgOSey7OgQe4qjcMmRCXuFNxO6yo8kWGFVZ7KR7jRW6rU3v978wsbocJqNN/6Z ZIjZjpWOUGojxpnfw1/5IgFtOGlmnz4fxVZpU6b460t7AD7xgV12ar2dt7YfNObSMF9k1yZr Xnd+GK/CRYfXPSWzzaU2mOxg+bQmjn4Q8QZE7jQyxJxqFSXwmpWAxoMWB7q5/K4kUW5HdlYL iT45xYTkET7z2TzJvGVYvFyiCfsUsI0MzaIL9AH1Q==
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:i4dlW6iSoQ6iaB2L7bFmggWDmnBQX3h13DAbv31ZSRFFG/FwyP rOoB1L73HJYWgqN03IwerwR5VpQRvnhPlICPoqTMmftWjdySqVxeRZjbcKrAeQYBEWmtQtsJ uINpIOdOEYbmIKzfoSgjPIaerIqePvmMvD6IuurAYOcegpUdAc0+4TMHf8LqQCfng/OXNPLu vk2iMonUvFRV0nKuCAQlUVVenKoNPG0Lj8ZwQdOhIh4A6SyRu19b/TCXGjr1QjegIK5Y1n3X nOkgT/6Knmmeq80AXg22ja6IkTsMf9y+FEGNeHhqEuW3fRY0eTFcFcso+5zXcISdKUmRAXeR 730k4d1vFImjfsl6eO0EPQMkfboW0TAjTZuC6laDPY0LzErXQBepB8bUYzSGqE16Lm1+sMjZ 6jlljpxKZ/HFfOmj/w6MPPUAwvnk2ooWA6mepWlHBHV5ACAYUh4LD30XklW6voJhiKorzP0d Mee/309bJTaxeXfnrZtm5gzJilWWkyBA6PRgwHttaO2zZbkXhlxw9ArfZv0Uso5dY4Ud1J9u 7EOqNnmPVHSdIXd7t0AKMETdGsAmLATBrQOCaZIEjhFqsAJ3XRwqSHrIkd9aWvYtgF3ZEykJ POXBdRsnMzYVvnDYmU0JhC4nn2MS2AtPTWu4hjDr1Cy/PBrZbQQFi+oWEV4r2dSq8kc7/mst 6ISeZrP8M=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.85,295,1624320000"; d="scan'208,217";a="799344840"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 15 Sep 2021 09:56:57 +0000
Received: from mail.cisco.com (xbe-rcd-007.cisco.com [173.37.102.22]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 18F9uvsK009132 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:56:57 GMT
Received: from xfe-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.227.253) by xbe-rcd-007.cisco.com (173.37.102.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.792.15; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 04:56:57 -0500
Received: from xfe-aln-004.cisco.com (173.37.135.124) by xfe-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.227.253) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.792.15; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 04:56:56 -0500
Received: from NAM12-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xfe-aln-004.cisco.com (173.37.135.124) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.792.15 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 04:56:56 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=dX64pxBFXVs2VRBF1WksYCKQjgijQLNDi6COFi2u6O85qlhIJm34bVIE26sxNnFJjyS2t2cKdRjfca47ptxpVeZFtrwRmzZ+nrBHXN/rgwbiZ1lCswY/YtBF930wzmLVG4Sv3+fEwVoM9JGTaPOLJFSD4eBR4hhPJuBdkHlmy33KryeJtFle5jepqaLd3YZzj09kyCwSGZIqeAXe9oH38onw5yzKa+Gn3KumHhafq2pAAkmiHBwwczMi6K0/vyN8vM8VX3Wc+Dm+49ES3l6SITy7Vl0zaf6fpj7VzGCvqlr6nB9h+/d217Fxzo4L1ikIsMMZZouJjWYiGtKPf1N0oA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=7P2L6JkSt+uVpXrgsMxIemoWP7EVlyXf3TckM6YOPyU=; b=DM5qHoHAKejqozrHr3BEfzf+k/uaMgxUpoEE2yr4r8aSSJpyO7XcRu1BbwddkGzSouCnk4qGDms4XjYyry+XCB4VhSf+X2i/UdlngryVZLzMrjzMDNK7GMPofAI46p48wP5cpmcjXRu2gqmEK3RupPtjXYW3PM1KTXUZPUKh3rWko7Y/yNMG194Wpsj9k0iXzGgtKIKu+RcqxhDxsUx2PTkjVsXBaQKphgTPnEkSA+SMRqUW6cVrF4KuXPlPN19NfDPjtlYAZxpIjI5w+VsHS80280IEziM3eq71AP2McCaXv2N9wXWadNyJW7mk907wb4Kr9pP9PFvFDFYSz37qCQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=7P2L6JkSt+uVpXrgsMxIemoWP7EVlyXf3TckM6YOPyU=; b=t0zn3hlD9wB9XyFCuUtDapXB62IjI3cc/Cu+f723w+4A6K9EznECbrlvflfZWo5++cELrvTBJ8X+7B6zT8zsM1uV5yLUpv549Ptg/CYJPeAf36FqWz4AA+J7bgkDiE7fkgWo7tV+VDBkyExy/5uxxGzhUX1UrxV5erHI5+Cw5KM=
Received: from DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:399::21) by DM6PR11MB4578.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:2a7::15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4523.14; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:56:54 +0000
Received: from DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c118:4f33:2b84:9305]) by DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c118:4f33:2b84:9305%3]) with mapi id 15.20.4523.014; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:56:54 +0000
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>
CC: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf
Thread-Index: AQHXdB0ZnZibUXpuT0+6mfsyEmKi+6s6kMRwgAHbvACAGptLcIACCfoAgCgIS2CAAC9eAIAATlmAgAEHugCAAhT2AIAXXfMAgADkiICAAJvfAIAAUDwAgAQq1SCAAgMaAIAAHRgAgAEX7ZA=
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 09:56:54 +0000
Message-ID: <DM4PR11MB54385831259CE140FD9AE121B5DB9@DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CABCOCHQB8=kAXRejif=04ThzbSn87oqvDLB5=oJ2FVcAKrSg4Q@mail.gmail.com> <DM4PR11MB5438F5874CDEB4D78C9A5695B5189@DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CABCOCHRwzRajMmSd2mArLeLr8OOxTdLEid3bEDdVH0vgNysTfg@mail.gmail.com> <DM4PR11MB5438FBF7837C1147D786964CB5E99@DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <AM8PR07MB8230BEFDC5A967AB6293C794F0EA9@AM8PR07MB8230.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <DM4PR11MB543824EB074422075681CA9AB5C49@DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <AM8PR07MB82307EB8EBBE614C60DC8D1CF0C49@AM8PR07MB8230.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CABCOCHQG_6qUUn9JzdrjmyiD8AQPsAPJXuLN+d+GfPnbHMpmbw@mail.gmail.com> <AM8PR07MB823050DF8EBE9F01D6E6C9B8F0C59@AM8PR07MB8230.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CABCOCHS+OKJfcdmHC2+ticxBA3oeV3KiP-Pw6_Tdyi22e2bNZA@mail.gmail.com> <AM8PR07MB82305417FC2792163FF848CBF0D59@AM8PR07MB8230.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CABCOCHTkEk8ZkqNESPV=Eqp1C8kOzgPjM3dsLYz2tb-R3NVqtA@mail.gmail.com> <AM8PR07MB8230A1B56CD9A58C3C570583F0D69@AM8PR07MB8230.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CABCOCHRO=SdFOdz9m8JXY2N7bvkqEa3J5nG_o9qjvjwBY4_m5w@mail.gmail.com> <DM4PR11MB543836BD78CF51B9CBE008B5B5D99@DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <AM8PR07MB82306748DBF0325D3B403A52F0DA9@AM8PR07MB8230.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CABCOCHSVCcv6oNDLfjqWt6UseFtOGEtB53T8Y5bi-5DoVdtyuQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHSVCcv6oNDLfjqWt6UseFtOGEtB53T8Y5bi-5DoVdtyuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: yumaworks.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;yumaworks.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 25ec717c-3404-44e5-1e4d-08d9782f25d6
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR11MB4578:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR11MB4578CA0857D3F2DA26191809B5DB9@DM6PR11MB4578.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8273;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(136003)(366004)(376002)(39860400002)(346002)(396003)(8936002)(86362001)(9686003)(316002)(66946007)(2906002)(55016002)(66446008)(30864003)(8676002)(66556008)(26005)(33656002)(76116006)(83380400001)(7696005)(5660300002)(966005)(166002)(4326008)(66574015)(6506007)(53546011)(71200400001)(66476007)(38100700002)(478600001)(110136005)(122000001)(186003)(64756008)(52536014)(38070700005)(579004)(559001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM4PR11MB54385831259CE140FD9AE121B5DB9DM4PR11MB5438namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 25ec717c-3404-44e5-1e4d-08d9782f25d6
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Sep 2021 09:56:54.2096 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: gbbJmacd3X7oHqdThuaUS9ywcR6q7kVN5gNbTHzl7xHkAgJB9phMe/J6sOkCKq9qILwcgEyCZC6ihz38dtOIbA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR11MB4578
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.22, xbe-rcd-007.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-9.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/RnjY7ggtcD-_SLPGo-qe6pjRCJI>
Subject: Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 15 Sep 2021 09:57:06 -0000
Balazs, Would this text be sufficient to alleviate your concerns? leaf includes-defaults { type ncwd:with-defaults-mode; default report-all; description " Indicates how data nodes with default values are represented for all data nodes contained in the instance-data-set. It uses the same definitions as per section 3 of RFC 6243, but applied in the context of an instance data file rather than a NETCONF request using the <with-defaults> parameter. For JSON files, the encoding of the 'report-all-tagged' option is as defined in section 4.8.9 of RFC 8040."; reference “With-defaults Capability for NETCONF, RFC 6243.” } I think that having a default value for the leaf is helpful, but I don’t mind if you prefer to set it to trim instead. Andy, would this also be acceptable to you? Regards, Rob From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Sent: 14 September 2021 18:09 To: Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com> Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf Hi, I do not have time for a conference on this leaf. You think this cut-and-paste is good engineering and not confusing to users. I disagree. IMO it is less confusing to use the correct typedef and declare in your leaf description-stmt that the inclusion of defaults is not considered a retrieval, so 6243, sec 3 does not apply. Andy On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 8:24 AM Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com<mailto:balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>> wrote: Hello, My view is that reusing the data ncwd:with-defaults-mode datatype, might be acceptable, but it is wrong, because: 1. As opposed to what Andy has wrote the data type does reference "RFC 6243<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6243>; Section 3<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6243#section-3>." (See line 58 in the YANG module). Section 3 contains a lot of concepts that are inappropriate for the instance-data draft (server, data retrieval, capabilities) 2. The typedef’s description is "Possible modes to report default data." From the 8 listed use-cases only two UC4 and UC5 is about reporting. In UC1,UC2,UC3, UC7,UC8 the instance-data-set is usually prepared by human SW developers which is not reporting. In UC6 we do not know whether this is about reporting, replying, or just sending the data. In the instance-data draft we always avoided assumptions about who creates the instance-data and why. There are so many potential use-cases, that they may have very different processes creating and using the data. The data is just present or absent. The wording in With-default RFC is too specific: “data is reported ...”. 1. report-all-tagged description contains “XML attribute” which is incorrect if we use JSON encoding. You can have an attribute in JSON, but here specifically an XML attribute is mentioned. 2. Rob, you stated that it is preferred to use the 2119 terms SHALL, SHALL NOT in the enum descriptions (and I also think it is the good solution). So, I reworded the text, that if the data node is covered by the instance-data-set then the enum’s value MUST be adhered to. The ncwd:with-defaults-mode datatype uses wording like “is reported”, “not reported”. That said, if this is the cost of getting this document to the IESG, I can accept the data-type. Please decide, so we can move forward. I am willing to have a conference, would you arrange it? Regards Balazs From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com<mailto:rwilton@cisco.com>> Sent: 2021. szeptember 13., hétfő 12:05 To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com<mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>>; Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com<mailto:balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>> Cc: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf Hi Andy, Balazs, I’m wondering whether it might be helpful to arrange a meeting to get to consensus on this issue (which I believe is important)? The concern that I raised in my original AD review was that the data set is allowed to be partial with the RECOMMENDATION that default values are removed from the data set. Hence, I think that those two choices combine to make it impossible for a consumer of an instance data file to know whether a data node has been excluded because it contained the default value vs it has been excluded because it not part of the data set. However, I think that Andy is potentially coming from the perspective that if these instance data files represent configuration then understanding how RFC 6243 with-defaults handling applies is important. To that end, I quite like Andy’s suggestion of directly reusing the ncwd:with-defaults-mode type, because it guarantees that the definitions are entirely consistent, and I believe that it sufficient to address my concern. leaf includes-defaults { type ncwd:with-defaults-mode; } Balazs, is there some way, perhaps with a tweaked description, or assigned default value for the leaf includes-defaults leaf, that this could be made to work for you? Thanks, Rob From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com<mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>> Sent: 10 September 2021 18:03 To: Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com<mailto:balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>> Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com<mailto:rwilton@cisco.com>>; NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 5:15 AM Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com<mailto:balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>> wrote: See below as BALAZS4 From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com<mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>> Sent: 2021. szeptember 10., péntek 4:57 To: Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com<mailto:balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>> Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com<mailto:rwilton@cisco.com>>; NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 6:19 AM Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com<mailto:balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>> wrote: Hello Andy, See below as BALAZS3. From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com<mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>> Sent: 2021. augusztus 25., szerda 18:29 To: Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com<mailto:balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>> Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com<mailto:rwilton@cisco.com>>; NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf Hi, Here is the latest text. It is inconsistent with RFC 6243, section 3. IMO the subsections should be cited instead of the copy-and-change approach. BALAZS3: The 6243 sections contain parts about “data retrieval” “capabilities” or “conceptual data nodes set by the server” These parts are not relevant for many of the instance data use cases, so I would like to stick with including text here. I guess I do not understand why the "with-defaults" leaf or at leaf "with-defaults-mode" typedef cannot be used. IMO this is bad practice. Applications that already know how to deal with defaults according to RFC 6243 should be supported. leaf includes-defaults { type ncwd:with-defaults-mode; } I do not see any text in this typedef that is server-specific. Andy BALAZS4: While I generally agree that duplication is a bad practice, I avoided using ncwd:with-defaults-mode because: • It references RFC 6243<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6243>; Section 3<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6243#section-3> which is full of inappropriate references (server, data retrieval, capabilities) • The typedef’s description is "Possible modes to report default data." However, in a number of use cases (e.g., UC2 Preloading default configuration data, UC7, U8) the data is not reported. • report-all-tagged description contains “XML attribute” which is incorrect if we use JSON encoding • I prefer to use the 2119 term SHALL, SHALL NOT in the enum descriptions. Is this acceptable? The data type I suggested does not have any references to section 3. It does not have any MUST,SHOULD,MAY text at all. The JSON encoding in RFC 7951 supports attributes. IMO this leaf will cause a lot of confusion for users. includes-defaults looks like with-defaults but it isn't. It uses the exact same enums as with-defaults, but they mean different things. Andy leaf includes-defaults { type enumeration { enum report-all { value 1; description "All data nodes SHOULD be included independent of any default values."; AB: should follow 6243, 3.1 } enum trim { value 2; description "Data nodes that have a default defined and where the actual value is the default value SHOULD NOT be included."; AB: should follow 6243, section 3.2 } enum explicit { value 3; description "Data nodes that have a default defined and where the actual value is the default value SHOULD NOT be included. However, if the actual value was set by a NETCONF client or other management application by the way of an explicit management operation the data node SHOULD be included."; AB: should follow 6243, section 3.3 } } description "As instance-data-sets MAY contain incomplete data sets, thus any data node MAY be absent. Providing the instance-data-set intends to contain a full data set, this leaf specifies whether the data set includes data nodes that have a default defined and where the actual value is the same as the default value. Data nodes that have no default values should always be included. Data nodes that have a default value, but the actual value is not equal to the schema defined default should always be included."; AB: The last paragraph should be removed or changed. Why are these nodes special? Nodes that are actually present and do not contain the YANG default are not relevant to this object. BALAZS3: OK reference "RFC 6243<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6243>: With-defaults Capability for NETCONF"; } The best way to indicate a representation of a YANG default in the data set is to include the "default" attribute in each default node. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6243#section-6 This actually works for explicit mode and leaf-lists (unlike the current solution). BALAZS3: OK. Added report-all-tagged enum to includes-defaults leaf. Here is the current proposed text: ------------------------------------------------------------ leaf includes-defaults { type enumeration { enum report-all { value 1; description "All data nodes SHALL be included independent of any default values, if the data node is covered by the instance-data-set."; } enum report-all-tagged { value 2; description "All data nodes SHALL be included independent of any default values if the data node is covered by the instance-data-set. Any nodes considered to be default data SHALL contain a 'default' attribute set to 'true'"; } enum trim { value 3; description "Data nodes that have a default defined and where the actual value is equal to the schema default value SHALL NOT be included."; } enum explicit { value 4; description "Data nodes where the actual value is equal to the schema default value SHALL NOT be included. However, if the actual value was set by a NETCONF client or other management application by the way of an explicit management operation, the data node SHALL be included, if the data node is covered by the instance-data-set."; } } description "An instance-data-set may contain or exclude default data. This leaf indicates whether default data is included. As instance-data-sets MAY contain incomplete data sets: MAY NOT cover all data nodes. A leaf or leaf-list MAY be absent because the instance-data-set does not intend to include the data node independent of default handling."; reference "RFC 6243: With-defaults Capability for NETCONF RFC 8040 :RESTCONF Protocol"; } ------------------------------------------------------------ On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 1:41 AM Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com<mailto:balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>> wrote: Hello Andy, In the -17 I removed the default value for includes-defaults as you proposed. I am not sure I understand the rest of the comments as instance-file-format does not use the concept of “basic-mode”. It has a single leaf to indicate what is the situation with defaults in the specific instance-data-set. As this is not a live server request/reply situation we do not want to specify a basic and additional modes, we just want to specify the handling used for this specific instance data set. Regards Balazs From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com<mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>> Sent: 2021. augusztus 23., hétfő 18:58 To: Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com<mailto:balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>> Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com<mailto:rwilton@cisco.com>>; NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 5:17 AM Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com<mailto:balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>> wrote: Hello Rob, I think this won’t fly. In sections 1.2 and 2 we state: “Instance data files MAY contain partial data sets.” Which is important for many use-cases. This means you cannot say that a default value will or must be included, as they might be omitted because they are not part of the partial data set. In a way it is difficult to separate between leaves that are missing because - They are not part of the partial data-set - They are omitted because they have the default value and one of the trim or explicit options is used If this becomes important the report-all options shall be used. I thought we already agreed there cannot be a default or there is no way to represent "no defaults added". Note that "report-all" is not useful if basic-mode=explicit, since a leaf reporting the YANG default could be set by the client. Only report-all-tagged will clearly identify defaults in this case. Also note that if basic-mode=report-all then there will be no defaults ever reported. This mode means the server does not consider any node to be a default and always returns every node (if with-defaults used or not). This is the reason I used the SHOULD word. Regards Balazs Andy From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com<mailto:rwilton@cisco.com>> Sent: 2021. augusztus 23., hétfő 12:27 To: Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com<mailto:balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>>; Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com<mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>>; NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf Hi Balazs, Andy, Netmod, Sorry for the delayed response. I would still like to strength the description of the defaults. E.g., RFC 6243 uses MUSTs rather than SHOULDs. Hence, I have generated some proposed alternative descriptions, that are somewhat stricter, but also more generically focussed only on the default values. With these definitions, I think that we could define the “include-defaults” default value to be “explicit”, since if the leaf if not included, then I think that this effectively what the meaning would be anyway. In particular, I would propose changing the descriptions as follows: leaf includes-defaults { type enumeration { enum report-all { value 1; description "All data nodes SHOULD be included independent of any default values."; } enum trim { value 2; description "Data nodes that have a default defined and where the actual value is the default value SHOULD NOT be included."; } enum explicit { value 3; description "Data nodes that have a default defined and where the actual value is the default value SHOULD NOT be included. However, if the actual value was set by a NETCONF client or other management application by the way of an explicit management operation the data node SHOULD be included."; } } Proposed: leaf includes-defaults { type enumeration { enum report-all { value 1; description "The instance data set includes all data nodes, including those that contain the schema default.”; } enum trim { value 2; description "The instance data set excludes all data nodes that contain the schema default."; } enum explicit { value 3; description "The instance data set may include some data nodes that match the schema default and may exclude some data nodes that match the schema default.”; } } description "This leaf provides an indication of how default data is presented within an instance data set, modelled on RFC 6243. Interpretation of the use of defaults depends on the context of what the instance data set represents. E.g., if the instance data set represents configuration, Then include-defaults aligns to the meaning of the default-handling basic modes in RFC 6243. If the instance data set represents operational data from the operational state datastore [RFC 8342], then include-defaults aligns to the definition of that datastore in RFC 8342.”; Would text along these lines work? Thanks, Rob From: Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com<mailto:balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>> Sent: 28 July 2021 23:08 To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com<mailto:rwilton@cisco.com>>; Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com<mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>> Cc: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf Hello Rob, Removing the “default trim;” will address Andy’s comment. Your in-use-values is very specific to one of the use-cases: reading/documenting operational values. It is not useful for the other use-cases. I think the “documenting operational datastore” use-case could be handled by indicating the includes-defaults=report-all. Case (i) would contain the value case (ii) will not. Regards Balazs From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com<mailto:rwilton@cisco.com>> Sent: 2021. július 27., kedd 17:38 To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com<mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>>; Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com<mailto:balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>> Cc: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf Hi Andy, Balazs, So, the reason that I want a flag to indicate whether default values are in use is because of this definition of operational in RFC 8342: Requests to retrieve nodes from <operational> always return the value in use if the node exists, regardless of any default value specified in the YANG module. If no value is returned for a given node, then this implies that the node is not used by the device. It was written this way because otherwise a consumer of operational data cannot differentiate between: (i) This value is not present because it matches the default value specified in the YANG module, and (ii) This value is not present because the server has failed to return it for some reason (e.g., perhaps the daemon that would have provided this value is down or not available, or perhaps it is a bug, or perhaps it is not implemented and is a missing deviation). So, I think that in some cases, the absence of a data node does not necessarily mean that the default value is in effect, and I wanted the instance-data document to be able to contain and correctly report this data. I think that this behaviour could be captured by a single leaf. Another way of articulating this would be: leaf in-use-values { type boolean; default false; description “Only if set to true, the absence of a value in the instance data for a given data node implies that the node is not used rather than implicitly taking the default value specified by any corresponding ‘default’ statement specified in the YANG schema.”; } With this, I’m not sure whether we need the “includes-default” leaf currently specified in the draft, but if we do, then I would think that leaf should be entirely optional, i.e., without the default “trim”. Regards, Rob From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com<mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>> Sent: 10 July 2021 17:41 To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com<mailto:rwilton@cisco.com>> Cc: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>; Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com<mailto:balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>> Subject: Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 5:23 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com<mailto:rwilton@cisco.com>> wrote: Andy, Yes, when I suggested this, I was thinking that a boolean flag might be sufficient. My point being that automatically filtering out default values isn’t always the right thing to do. The solution is simple. Get rid of the inappropriate "default trim" statement. If the leaf is present then it identifies the basic-mode that was used to include defaults. If not then the information is either not known, not applicable, or defaults were not added. The "default" statement is a bug because there is no default basic-mode. All of the basic-modes are in use in deployments and no camp has ever been able to convince the others that theirs is right. Andy E.g., something along these lines: leaf exclude-defaults { type boolean; default true; description “Can be used to reduce the size of the content data file. When unset or set to true, data nodes that have a default defined and where the actual value is the default value are excluded from the content data. When set to false, data nodes with default value are not filtered, and may appear in the content data.” } Would this satisfy your concern? Regards, Rob From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Andy Bierman Sent: 08 July 2021 18:16 To: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf Hi, The module has this object: leaf includes-defaults { type enumeration { enum report-all { value 1; description "All data nodes SHOULD be included independent of any default values."; } enum trim { value 2; description "Data nodes that have a default defined and where the actual value is the default value SHOULD NOT be included."; } enum explicit { value 3; description "Data nodes that have a default defined and where the actual value is the default value SHOULD NOT be included. However, if the actual value was set by a NETCONF client or other management application by the way of an explicit management operation the data node SHOULD be included."; } } default trim; The draft is extremely server-centric, like most IETF standards, but this leaf is too server-centric to ignore. Consider the possibility that the source of the file is NOT a NETCONF server. This data may not be known so the default of "trim" may not be correct. IMO this leaf is noise because any tool that knows the schema will also know the YANG defaults. The solution is incomplete anyway because the presence of a leaf that has a YANG default is not enough. The "report-all-tagged" mode must be used to identify defaults. IMO this leaf should be removed, but at least add an enum called "unknown". Andy
- [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults … Rob Wilton (rwilton)