Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01
Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Tue, 18 July 2017 07:12 UTC
Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.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 83902131B4D; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 00:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 F63Fx7m8ReD3; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 00:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22d.google.com (mail-pg0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EE9B131562; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 00:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id k14so7785537pgr.0; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 00:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=dxp47ULuoUkTZ7KuhOI5tItw3SQr1UFdMEneEzO5/xI=; b=i8UxWHxlbgdv7qrSIjUtSBbm/D1qpAbMI5Q1izZAcmHQfkMGOYDvPOtb1MoMD2SNZX m7qvYOo1wRfuxf0vPxqBd4ISSbRXuQHskw/2FGzN4Fny/M6shsK0FfJFUo5kvpvOnBvg 4xJ5BaxDPDO/ycpbaI4JOOBAZJLPXxWnufwlq6V0GQFsOB3Tycjf6K/KRgw0izsyeqW2 QPbpAiITsssW9b0D6nAToNSQU+HU5jfEsiwIuBZYW+P23mccor/kmb7Eip0HBq8LYoSf 2O0eM6Yp03aW2swlNNZowkJ0n0dzbOcYVDK9jZgx0cTe6YCnDXxXjNOGMAqkw2tviANv yUEg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=dxp47ULuoUkTZ7KuhOI5tItw3SQr1UFdMEneEzO5/xI=; b=lsEtAID48jXokiYaG0Wm1QqWG0HFodDLjrqdzrAtjXH/E059fcxfEskPJXEo6flqCX N/J2SS2s+BYGvlucY+/p15mSBgLwFbN/McXfJ9NQvgChQmNLyRKzj+LZyPnwGFYmycMr b7P9FK1q3ZL0sGvQu+53mvdXzQ8tyudW4475gcT0FsCtLug1Pq1ywd670Kg1iUct7GvV CipWzcV+gJ8aAkUhc0Nipl9uNkPlBYvc4e6SEvnk2/v3MXrfooxJBAl3tt0OUY93PnRE 6apg1QXLFrZX+BfJdnC97DtHBlkyYspEPtx6wNji2J04gagUuEiHGpgiTRWL6OQgl+7X pbQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw11385DCYzq/d166gxGkRf0kjQGZQmEY/9/JEA7M25un0itbws1k8 EoYfYBz6M85atQ==
X-Received: by 10.98.108.74 with SMTP id h71mr250073pfc.206.1500361955820; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 00:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.24.20.224] ([128.107.241.191]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d19sm2873674pfe.24.2017.07.18.00.12.33 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Jul 2017 00:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_46D7EDD3-3953-4C6C-A301-016F33088904"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR07MB0843FAB6200281120AD901039BA00@HE1PR07MB0843.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 09:12:37 +0200
Cc: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines@ietf.org" <draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <F1B9EE4F-E03B-45D7-B5A7-52E98E2CFFF8@gmail.com>
References: <BN3PR0201MB0867C18E5FF7239EE991F720F1C20@BN3PR0201MB0867.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <20170613200928.GA55527@elstar.local> <CY1PR0201MB0875F3203D6D4DFD606061FAF1C30@CY1PR0201MB0875.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <2513fdd0-a8b3-b547-8c37-c736c575c4bc@cisco.com> <0505FAA8-BB82-4BCB-B4A5-E8018260580D@gmail.com> <5525cbb1-9ac7-bf24-67e1-68bb681be6ac@cisco.com> <HE1PR07MB0843FAB6200281120AD901039BA00@HE1PR07MB0843.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/SiEUOJxw69mO4MBecNAyXMSVnrk>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01
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: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 07:12:39 -0000
Jason, > On Jul 17, 2017, at 11:38 AM, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <jason.sterne@nokia.com> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > This is something that could use further clarification in the draft. i.e. examples and guidelines of when to create a separate "config false" leaf (vs the more typical case of just having a single "config true" leaf). There is an example in there currently but I personally found it confusing: > > "An example would be the speed > of an interface, where the configured value may not be the value that > is currently used.” It turns out that the example I had in mind does not create a separate ‘config false’ leaf. Instead, I see two leafs defined as: leaf auto-negotiation { type boolean { description “When set to true, the interface will auto negotiate for speed. When set to false, a separate leaf called ‘speed’ will define the desired speed.”; } } leaf speed { type enumeration { enum 10M; …. enum 10G; } } Notice, I have not defined speed as a ‘config false’ leaf, because it could be used if auto-negotiation is set to false to manually set the speed of the interface. But I see the interface name as a ‘config false’ leaf, because the name of the interface is assigned by the system, and cannot be changed by the user. leaf interface-name { config false; type string { description “Name of the interface as assigned by the system. This could include information of which line card the interface is on. Example, GigabitEthernet 0/0/0/0”; } } Does this help? > > I wasn't sure if that example referred to the same issue as you guys are discussing below. Perhaps as a minimum we could grab some of the details for the example below and incorporate them into the draft ? > > Rgds, > Jason > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Robert Wilton >> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 17:54 >> To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>> >> Cc: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com <mailto:Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>>; netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>; draft-dsdt-nmda- >> guidelines@ietf.org <mailto:guidelines@ietf.org> >> Subject: Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01 >> >> >> >> On 14/06/2017 16:23, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: >>>> On Jun 14, 2017, at 8:10 AM, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Xufeng, >>>> >>>> >>>> On 14/06/2017 14:01, Xufeng Liu wrote: >>>>> Hi Juergen, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the confirmation. >>>>> As for the distinction between applied configuration and operational, I >> think that it has been determined to be useful in some use cases. We can >> create a separate leaf in such a case. >>>> Yes, I think that this is exactly the right approach. >>>> >>>> In the general case, a single leaf for applied configuration and the >> operational value is normally sufficient. >>>> >>>> But in some cases (e.g. where a value could be configured and/or >> negotiated via protocol) then it sometimes useful to both see the input into the >> protocol negotiation and also the resultant output value. >>>> >>>> Here, there is a choice to be made to decide whether the extra config false >> leaf represents the input value into the negotiation, or the output value. I >> think that the decision probably depends on the protocol semantics, but all >> things being equal, there is a benefit if the configured value and actual >> operational value end up being represented by the same leaf/path (since this in >> the case in the mainline case where extra config false leaves are not required). >>> Another way to look at it is whether the input value is truly different from the >> output value. For example, if the input value is auto-negotiation, a boolean, but >> the output value is a speed of 10/100/1000/10000, a uint32, then a separate >> leaf makes sense. >> Yes, agreed. >> >> For cases like these (e.g. Ethernet auto-negotiation) a good approach seem to >> be to model the leaf "enabling auto" as a separate leaf from the explicitly >> configured/operational value. >> >> Thanks, >> Rob >> >> >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> - Xufeng >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder >>>>>> [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 4:10 PM >>>>>> To: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com> >>>>>> Cc: draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: Clarification Question on >>>>>> draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01 >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> the typical -state tree consists of config false nodes and hence it >>>>>> represents operational state. This is not a transitioning period >>>>>> question, this is how -state trees were designed. Note also that >>>>>> the applied configuration is part of the operational state in NMDA >>>>>> - for config true objects, there is no difference between the >>>>>> applied configuration value and the operationally used value - they are >> the same. >>>>>> >>>>>> /js >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 07:53:32PM +0000, Xufeng Liu wrote: >>>>>>> During discussing the adoption of this guidelines, a question came >>>>>>> up w.r.t. the >>>>>> semantics of the non-NMDA "-state" module during the transitioning >> period: >>>>>>> What kind of state do the leaves in the "-state" module represent? >>>>>>> The applied >>>>>> configuration or the actually used operational data? >>>>>>> Since only of the two types can be represented, what is the >>>>>>> guideline to model >>>>>> the other type? >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> - Xufeng >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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/> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> netmod mailing list >>>> netmod@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>> Mahesh Jethanandani >>> mjethanandani@gmail.com >>> >>> >>> >>> . >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod> Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanandani@gmail.com
- [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt-nmd… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt… Mahesh Jethanandani