Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding support
Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Fri, 29 March 2019 18:46 UTC
Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 72DF41202C4 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 6tGYBM3BwxzA for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de (atlas5.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49D251202E5 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67F06CF; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:46:26 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.217]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id vZOHGV3lpgLn; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:46:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "Jacobs University CA - G01" (verified OK)) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:46:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C4D200AB; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:46:26 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10028) with ESMTP id 8os7y3BCQ4GB; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:46:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from exchange.jacobs-university.de (sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "exchange.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (verified OK)) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C7F2200A8; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:46:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from anna.localdomain (10.50.218.117) by sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.1591.10; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:46:25 +0100
Received: by anna.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 501) id 460FF3007A3D06; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:46:24 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:46:24 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
CC: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190329184624.4sg6lbasv5b5u4hw@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <20190329111930.k2dt6wctsazxa7rp@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <CABCOCHS=VhfpKHYhB_eQ8Y9i5FK6+R1q4a8Soc=z=HRYJLV5OA@mail.gmail.com> <20190329161723.xuh3avyrdepdw3px@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <CABCOCHS6cNhG_YeeW_ueYMOvo1TQHfpFi8TQGDrka12yoRvZLA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHS6cNhG_YeeW_ueYMOvo1TQHfpFi8TQGDrka12yoRvZLA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
X-ClientProxiedBy: SXCHMB04.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.156) To sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Va5y_P7Gl8L_2kPQ_3LOZbArx3Y>
Subject: Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding support
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: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 18:46:37 -0000
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 09:30:19AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:17 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder < > j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 09:07:18AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:19 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > > j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > this is issue is closed but I wonder whether this is correct. I have > > > > several questions looking at the issue on github: > > > > > > > > - Why is this not a YANG issue? > > > > - Which workaround is better? > > > > - Why is this tagged as a NETCONF issue? > > > > > > > > > > > Did you mean this should be NETCONF issue? > > > It is more of a protocol problem then a modeling problem. > > > The goal is to use the model unaltered. > > > > I think it would be valuable if say the definition of ipv4-address > > could state that a canonical binary representation is of type binary { > > length 4; }. Doing this is only meaningful for some types but it would > > allow to add more binary representations over time. > > > > > > If we want to support binary encodings, we need to allow modelers to > > > > define which types map to a canonical binary representation in > > > > addition to the canonical string representation. As stated in the > > > > issue description, hard-wiring some types in the encoding > > > > specifications is very limited. > > > > > > > > In terms of backwards compatibility, this issue should IMHO be tagged > > > > high (adding binary encoding for some types does not cause any > > > > backwards compatibility problem since so far we have only strings). > > > > > > > > > > > Not so sure. > > > The base64 encoding could look like a valid string. > > > The receiver must know a binary type is being sent (XML and JSON both > > fail > > > here, but not CBOR). > > > > I am talking about CBOR, not about XML or JSON. I want to provide > > hints to CBOR (or similar binary encodings) that values can be > > represented in a different format. I do not expect these hints to be > > used by XML or JSON. If you need binary encoding efficiency, use CBOR > > instead of JSON. > > > > > > While I do not have a solution proposal, I think this issue is worth > > > > to look at and we should not close it right now. > > > > > > > > > > > I have a solution proposal, but I have not implemented it yet, so it it > > not > > > detailed... > > > > > > Both sender and receiver need to agree on the binary encoding and how the > > > data is tagged as binary. > > > > > > This expired draft should address that problem: > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahesh-netconf-binary-encoding-01 > > > > > > For every type T that they agree on, there are standard T.b2y() and > > T.y2b() > > > conversion functions. > > > There are also some extensions to define conversion templates so vendors > > > can add their own types. > > > > > > The YANG modules do not need to actually be altered. The peers will > > > negotiate the > > > set of types that will be sent as binary when the session starts. > > > The receiver knows T and the SID for each object, and will accept either > > > the YANG or binary encoding. > > > > Sounds complex for me to negotiate this. I rather say once that a > > binary encoding can ship an IPv6 address as type binary { length 16; } > > and then CBOR will simply do the right thing. > > > > > OK, but this would require new type names. > You cannot simply change some standard type to be a union with a binary > type. > > This forces all implementations of that type to support the binary variant. > That breaks old clients that worked with the version before the binary > variant. > > The ripple effect on the models changing types would be non-trivial. > Using this union-type approach forces every protocol to support the binary > encoding, > yet base64 in a union with strings is very error-prone. > I am not proposing do change the type definitions we have. My idea was to have an optional additional definition for binary encodings. Here is an ad-hoc example (I do not like the details of the syntax, but perhaps this helps to understand the idea): typedef ipv4-address { type string { pattern '(([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9][0-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])\.){3}' + '([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9][0-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])'; } description "The ipv4-address type represents an IPv4 address in dotted-quad notation."; binary-representation { type binary { length 4; } description "The binary representation uses as 4-byte binary string in network byte ordering."; } } The CBOR encoder (or other binary encoders) would then encode the value as a 4 byte binary value, the XML and JSON encoder would use the canonical string representation. If the binary-representation is not specified, then the generic CBOR encoding rules apply. I assume that additional binary representation definitions will only be needed for a couple of types (and I might even be fine to restrict that to typedefs). Anyway, details need work, but if we want to support more efficient binary encodings, then I think we should keep the issue #46 open. /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] yang next issue #46 binary encoding supp… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding … Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding … Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding … Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding … Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding … Kent Watsen