Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 20 December 2017 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@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 58D1C127137 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 07:52:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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
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 03hfldjZslsE for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 07:52:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5ADFB1270A3 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 07:52:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6813; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1513785171; x=1514994771; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=khO7bD288zywO8swts1qUwPJYLPni7GyXeWf/mMnnys=; b=Hh9N5p2hLuSd2ERvpOOPydznvP9jCQ78Aifd3YykV4UAOYOuGB+MU34u tJJFRgVLlV+uVo/786lwsDNyiGz7dHKmnaYQT7FfAQ4nftHIdhAuAN8BD CvpCP39JNVGMlWXGiQCdKhG3A1jYT0vEn1EcXnwPMaMgcDgVKzdkKGa6m U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DDAQDuhTpa/xbLJq1bGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYQkdCeEBosVj2kzkVWFUIIVCh+BYoM6AoVVFgEBAQEBAQEBAWs?= =?us-ascii?q?ohSQBBSNWEAsOCioCAlcGDQYCAQEWihEQpE6CJyaKRQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEaBYN/g2iBaSmDA4MvAYFYgyyCYwWKXIdAkSiIAI0ugheKASSHPI0egVm?= =?us-ascii?q?IBYE7JggqgU8yGggbFTyCKYRYQDeKZAEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,432,1508803200"; d="scan'208,217";a="1049615"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Dec 2017 15:52:47 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vBKFqlAg022716; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:52:47 GMT
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
References: <9e66674b-4c6b-94f4-5fb6-4013c390c5db@cisco.com> <20171220.143253.1584852195806955458.mbj@tail-f.com> <fd46c4ab-5c43-1b61-2b00-ca71f13fc932@cisco.com> <20171220.160020.956270997417344353.mbj@tail-f.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <cb06b12e-59d9-148e-03f0-2ffdb1e4e15f@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:52:46 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171220.160020.956270997417344353.mbj@tail-f.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------B1C9B5478AF6FCA512B4CC22"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/VOEJdudCmRhl1ENiJGYLeM5DrdY>
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06
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, 20 Dec 2017 15:52:54 -0000

On 12/20/2017 4:00 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Only kept the relevant excerpts.
>>>> - Some objects are read-write in RFC6933:
>>>>         entPhysicalSerialNum
>>>>         entPhysicalAlias
>>>>         entPhysicalAssetID
>>>>         entPhysicalUris
>>>>
>>>> For example, entPhysicalSerialNum being read-write always bothered me.
>>>> serial-num is now "config false", which is a good news IMO.
>>> Actually, this was not the intention.  In draft-ietf-netmod-entity-03
>>> this is configurable.  I missed this in the conversion to NMDA.
>> Ah. So no good news in this case...
>>>> In the reverse direction, entPhysicalMfgName is read-only in RFC6933,
>>>> while it's "config true" in draft-ietf-netmod-entity
>>> Yes, this was added per request from the WG.  See e.g. the thread
>>> "draft-ietf-netmod-entity issue #13".
>> Sure. It was mainly an observation.
>>> However, I think that what we have now is probably not correct.  I
>>> think that all nodes 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name' should
>>> be config true, and the description of list 'component' updated to
>>> reflect that all these tree leafs are handled the same way.
>>>
>>> I would like to know what the WG thinks about this.
>> Talking as a contributor this time.
>> It seems that inventory management is kind of broken when someone can
>> change 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name.
> They can't really change them.  The configured values are only used
> (i.e. visible in the operational state) if the device cannot detect
> them automatically.  I.e., they work as "post-it" notes only.
If I look at, for example, the mfg-name, description, this is not what 
it says.

    leaf mfg-name {
            type string;
            description
              "The name of the manufacturer of this physical component.
               The preferred value is the manufacturer name string
               actually printed on the component itself (if present).

               Note that comparisons between instances of the model-name,
               firmware-rev, software-rev, and the serial-num nodes are
               only meaningful amongst component with the same value of
               mfg-name.

               If the manufacturer name string associated with the
               physical component is unknown to the server, then this
               node is not instantiated.";
            reference "RFC 6933 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6933>: entPhysicalMfgName";

Regards, Benoit

>
>
> /martin
> .
>