[netmod] Re: [netconf] Re: Default statements on udp-client-server groupings

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 9:08 AM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Let me clarify, I’m trying to close the "default 0” statement on the
> "local-port” leafs issue.  Whether rfc8407bis is updated is a secondary
> concern.
>
> Andy (and others), do you believe this (to never set “default” or
> “mandatory”) to be a best-practice for reusable groupings?  Or more
> specifically and better for me, do you think the  "default 0” statement on
> the "local-port” leafs is okay or should be removed (in the
> tcl-client-server draft)?
>
>
In this case, default 0 meant use whatever port you want.
IMO that is a bad practice and should never be done.

In this case, the default is for an application well-known port assignment,
so the
groupings for the application should set the default port.

Kent
>
>
Andy


>
> > On Sep 20, 2024, at 11:14 AM, Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I do not think any new YANG guidelines need to be added to the already
> > completed rfc8407bis.
> > This is a design decision based on the intended reuse of the groupings.
> >
> > Here is a common sense guideline:  Document the grouping reuse
> limitations
> > in the description-stmt.
> >
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 8:02 AM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Can folks please chime in on this discussion to help bring it to a
> close?
> >>
> >> I rescinded my AUTH48 “approval” for the tcp-client-server draft pending
> >> the outcome of this discussion.
> >>
> >> PS: I see that Thomas CC-ed NETMOD, which makes sense given a potential
> >> update to rfc8407bis.
> >>
> >> Kent
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sep 18, 2024, at 2:52 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Kent, Andy and Alex,
> >>
> >> I think Alex statement
> >>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/5Yaiom0B0lDTeSPOvgNfPIEFvBw/
> ,
> >> Andy's feedback and guidelines in
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8407#section-4.4 resp.
> >>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-15#section-4.4
> >> makes perfectly sense and I don't see why we should do else. As an
> >> author, I suggest to add in section 4 of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis
> based
> >> on the conclusion of this discussion guidelines on reusable YANG
> groupings.
> >>
> >> Best wishes
> >> Thomas
> >>
> >> *From:* Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 18, 2024 3:12 AM
> >> *To:* Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>
> >> *Cc:* [e-mail];
> >> [e-mail]
> >> *Subject:* [netconf] Re: Default statements on udp-client-server
> groupings
> >>
> >> *Be aware:* This is an external email.
> >>
> >> Hi Andy,
> >>
> >>
> >> The main purpose for YANG defaults is ease of use.
> >> If there are less things to configure then the device is easier to use.
> >> Without a default port then this parameter becomes mandatory to
> configure
>
>