Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6031)

Radek Krejci <rkrejci@cesnet.cz> Mon, 06 April 2020 06:51 UTC

Return-Path: <rkrejci@cesnet.cz>
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 13E143A076E for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 23:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cesnet.cz
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 0D7CCZ6hV-Sp for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 23:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from office2.cesnet.cz (office2.cesnet.cz [195.113.144.244]) (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 7D75C3A0765 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 23:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.55.109] (ip4-83-240-38-102.cust.nbox.cz [83.240.38.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by office2.cesnet.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 85EDE400052; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 08:51:47 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cesnet.cz; s=office2-2020; t=1586155907; bh=o2GXjRzSYrpIeBWhPmhFctnSNFCkA9YWg5kvl6Cp+xI=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=ekdblYWbwYwgTA0kkr/qLTYDOYyFEREYMFhKXfWRUfH1UR9/fsVIUj/Z0W/Wh/bLD sYepTBCEku8ao77OtFcDJuzYb2LHf2elKcG4r2BebSiXl3ZyO7aRffZf57oSWIpDE6 3vPoW1kPwNTZ/UaquaudSRubNF3+OcEOs8TNIh8Ng15SZ7LMlh1oepOj/Ok+d2rS0J EVqGTYgFVBaQcropP8EsgwSYQjQ4HEQyUlfWkZ0g+whuitdLfLs6y/Adop72rTITyl 55/iD7RK+sfJHSdXmlfv0tccfZfoNjEmrr/auCXbpf1OuDV46JszSTGEWxMKgYSA9H mXf9fOIStdzVw==
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <20200327161318.ykrx2s36bhmaglxq@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <MN2PR11MB43666AB22069D14FC3FB9A66B5C70@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DM5PR08MB26333FAB53D3C4C781AB7B6B9BC70@DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <20200403.155421.968858617291773287.id@4668.se> <DM5PR08MB263377515563D05220D299919BC70@DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <9c3ee87c0e9d14c8921796c4b53d44620b53a942.camel@nic.cz> <MN2PR11MB4366BB6982E7A530F5654789B5C70@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20200403165538.2lk4x5j32e3ctl4t@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
From: Radek Krejci <rkrejci@cesnet.cz>
Autocrypt: addr=rkrejci@cesnet.cz; keydata= xsDiBEKfHd4RBADDE8CtJpEtOraXBKfQg0KCRZu7BRALixoLqW98U+N9h+PJ+gCnFaKNmnYu fXWLYKTJRUlaoMGIJOZjHpr/zvwozSR+VJkxCsTyNYTF8vIfN3Iwrxy9e8CNy/O1GI50K/ld WWMDl+3M2NztiBFPrCT0b/U5ErsN7bTrf2XLEQRpZwCg95POGbJPqPAaaok2KU5e2u0/flsD /AyC0aRO66Ci0OGw0R5sCJmzZ5xE5eBUvfx0N0IC16aojrwRYM5yf+bULtBDd4wPI1R+VH/X P6OrDgzlDmutJthVtYfCcho3IhqnVo1R/UvJxjF3ATKbOnVHL4xwiLSrRDb6rKVyd1+Kc7cq +JABgFl+JP4xndytvvUXdVqhuSUFBACCDdDtxutkclBrvEp2guBIftuT4/oK3IWxgtevlGfY LZXwdD6pIWS1z6y6xthoFTsLWS1QCFk2ZXmAgvOV/lnW0iGHwO5kCfzvWJq7weeH2FGuBgq+ WInxhdIFD/QwiXV6EPUWzAoC5Fx4Cz5ySFSd6n0C1Mrzin3ABtPHRpUT8s0pUmFkZWsgS3Jl amNpIChDRVNORVQpIDxya3JlamNpQGNlc25ldC5jej7CYgQTEQIAIgUCTT/pkAIbAwYLCQgH AwIGFQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQIMoxClN+p/31DwCfWVWX1IWaUa6+QbuVvZQIkb6m Rn8AoLRvdANGe/As/Nxabu+KKtrorkQ6zsBNBEKfHeIQBACwORs231u+o9/pM7y85ZlZhnNY iJziZ4P5W9lD5cwcEUFgTt1upUmjjSMWr5x4HL6o5jZeKOQMxiYP+8qA8OPEM6fzemS1Uj9M 6RXUaoUZFrcKD6BvneyyKuGgNa9bQfTG0aDOqaxy4lYFNcHVeo9sXJ+6adVxlCo/GzZ6zznn nwADBQP+IZQoao7aCFkZOVk8F5AW9Iiz0hk1trdCw88vD5fPMqcLxOQEsKrHAjibTWyOy1il 9zgLyVjcBzOs+v6UvbcJRybyaITC7j4IFPr78euVup/AeL+A9ay+ZWKHMFzALD+VjLyYAiRL w2MBjdqAKbPh2Ei1HXJoOX5JTWWnMRsBey/CSQQYEQIACQUCQp8d4gIbDAAKCRAgyjEKU36n /YssAKDVrEroZMSci018ipG4q6w11TsriwCghwCwX0isavqXJTbw10hwJePlDns=
Message-ID: <0a546588-6f87-3362-17da-37de8ea08956@cesnet.cz>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 08:51:46 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200403165538.2lk4x5j32e3ctl4t@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms070203020901050407040107"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Sl_LsTFb6JiJMJEtcTzClITjaWs>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6031)
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: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 06:51:55 -0000

Hi,
I just want to emphasis, what are the consequences of the option 1. This
way, the tools are allowed to not accept require-instance in derived
types, so actually schema authors SHOULD NOT use require-instance this
way. Since there is at least 1 YANG model in RFC (8639 and I would
expect more), which has require-instance in the derive type, errata will
be needed in this case(s).

Regards,
Radek


Dne 03. 04. 20 v 18:55 Juergen Schoenwaelder napsal(a):
> I propose option 1) and add an issue on yang-next (if not already
> there yet).
>
> /js
>
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 04:24:35PM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>> For the errata, it looks like there are two choices:
>>
>> 1) We reject this errata, on the grounds that it is unclear on what the behaviour was expected to be.  It is left unspecified as to whether require-instance is allowed in a typedef.  We add an issue on the YANG.Next issue tracker to sort this out in a future revision of YANG.
>>
>> 2) We agree on what the expected behaviour should be, in which case it may be possible that this can be "Hold for document update", although it still seems questionable whether this really fits as an errata.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rob
>>  
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka
>>> Sent: 03 April 2020 15:52
>>> To: netmod@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6031)
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 14:01 +0000, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>
>>>> I believe you that the technical "value space" doesn't change, but
>>>> that leaf would suddenly accept more values than it did before right?
>>>> I'm wondering if we want to follow the "spirit" here, or stick with the
>>> "value space" argument.
>>>
>>> I agree with Martin here. Moreover, if such a derived type is added, it
>>> doesn't change anything related to existing data, because they use the
>>> base type as before. New data nodes may use the new type but no confusion
>>> can arise - their type has "require-instance false", which is correct.
>>>
>>> Lada
>>>
>>>> I'm not really certain what the implications are (and maybe someone
>>>> has an example of why it is better to allow it?) but overwriting
>>>> require-instance with 'false' doesn't feel right.
>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 9:54 AM
>>>>> To: Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <jason.sterne@nokia.com>
>>>>> Cc: rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org; j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
>>>>> university.de; mbj+ietf@4668.se; warren@kumari.net; netmod@ietf.org;
>>>>> rfc- editor@rfc-editor.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6031)
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I don't think we should allow overwriting a require-instance true
>>>>>> with a require-instance false in a derived type. It seems to go
>>>>>> against the spirit of avoiding expansion of allowable values.
>>>>> As I wrote earlier in this thread, the value space doesn't change
>>>>> with require-instance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> /martin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> From section 4.1 of RFC7950:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Derived types can restrict their base type's set of valid
>>>>>> values
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this text in section 7.3.4 implies that derived types only do
>>>>>> further restriction:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     If the type's default value is not valid according to the new
>>>>>>    restrictions specified in a derived type or leaf definition, the
>>>>>>    derived type or leaf definition MUST specify a new default value
>>>>>>    compatible with the restrictions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Going the other direction (overwriting with require-instance true)
>>>>>> seems OK to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Rob Wilton
>>>>>>> (rwilton)
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 8:06 AM
>>>>>>> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>>>>>> <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>de>;
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>> Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
>>>>>>> Cc: warren@kumari.net; netmod@ietf.org;
>>>>>>> rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6031)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Juergen
>>>>>>> Schoenwaelder
>>>>>>>> Sent: 27 March 2020 16:13
>>>>>>>> To: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
>>>>>>>> Cc: ibagdona@gmail.com; warren@kumari.net; netmod@ietf.org;
>>>>>>>> rfc- editor@rfc-editor.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950
>>>>>>>> (6031)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 04:35:44PM +0100, Martin Björklund
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [re-sent w/ correct address]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> two comments:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - It is unclear to me whether this really qualifies as an
>>> errata.
>>>>>>>>>> - If we add this, then there should probably text about
>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>   combinations are allowed. For example, for pattern and
>>>>>>>>>> ranges,
>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>   is explicit text that says further restrictions of the
>>>>>>>>>> value space
>>>>>>>>>>   are possible, bot not expansions. If we follow that
>>>>>>>>>> logic, then
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   typedef a {
>>>>>>>>>>     type leaf-ref {
>>>>>>>>>>       path "/some/thing";
>>>>>>>>>>       require-instance true;
>>>>>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   typedef b {
>>>>>>>>>>     type a {
>>>>>>>>>>       require-instance false;
>>>>>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   might be illegal since b has a larger value space than a.
>>>>>>>>> The value space of b is the same as for a. "require-instance"
>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>> change the value space; it changes semantic validation of
>>>>>>>>> the given values ((see my mail from 17 Mar, "Require-instance
>>> problem").
>>>>>>>>> /martin
>>>>>>>> OK. If we consider require-instance a constraint and not a
>>>>>>>> restriction, then the motivation for this errata is at least
>>>>>>>> confusing:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   Since no one argued against this understanding, this errata
>>> changes
>>>>>>>>   the text to the same form as in other restrictions applicable
>>> to
>>>>>>>>   derived types.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simply put: Do you think it is OK to overwrite a
>>>>>>>> require-instance true with a require-instance false in a derived
>>> type?
>>>>>>> [RW]
>>>>>>> I'm not sure, but going in the other direction seems plausible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> E.g. you start with a typedef that is explicitly
>>>>>>> require-instance false that is then refined by a typedef to be
>>>>>>> require-instance true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Rob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /js
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>>>>>>>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen |
>>> Germany
>>>>>>>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-
>>> university.de/>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>>>>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>>>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>> --
>>> Ladislav Lhotka
>>> Head, CZ.NIC Labs
>>> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod