Re: [netmod] schema mount open issue #1

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 13 September 2017 11:22 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 8479C132355 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 04:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 PkBzPf5ykLEy for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 04:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF9B91252BA for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 04:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.41]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6569D1AE0352; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:22:03 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:20:31 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20170913.132031.1474514593050589478.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: lberger@labn.net
Cc: lhotka@nic.cz, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <f546e06b-c89f-084b-7374-b7a8cb58bc57@labn.net>
References: <20170830.094028.1809893324608957744.mbj@tail-f.com> <15e32791e40.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <f546e06b-c89f-084b-7374-b7a8cb58bc57@labn.net>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/WQ-IScNNXPx-ktEOAhMCTG2nd_4>
Subject: Re: [netmod] schema mount open issue #1
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, 13 Sep 2017 11:22:07 -0000

Hi,

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The LNI/NI authors/RTG Area DT met yesterday and discussed the proposed
> change as well as the other topics that came up in the subsequent
> discussion.  The high order bit is that the proposed and current
> definitions are adequate for our needs.  Read further if you care about
> details, including confirming our understanding:
> 
> 1) WRT xpath context change proposed by martin
> 
> Our understanding is that absolute paths continue to be allowed

Yes, this is correct.

> , for
> example the following remains valid:
> 
>            "use-schema": [
>              {
>                "name": "ni-schema",
>                "parent-reference": [
>                  "/*[namespace-uri() = 'urn:ietf:...:ietf-interfaces']"
>                ]
>              }
>            ]
> 
> Assuming yes, then we have no objection to the change (as it allows the
> server implementor to choose how/if they support vrf name filtering.
> Obviously, using the new syntax exposes the restriction to the client
> which is probably desirable.)
> 
> 2. parent-reference location is adequate for our needs. 
> This said, we think parent-references are more appropriately contained
> within the schema list and having them there will yield less complex
> operational data. 
> 
> 3. current mount point extension usage definition (must be in a list or
> container).
> Our use case is covered by always having a single mount point contained
> in a container.  We don't see the need for mount point extensions within
> lists or for there to ever be siblings of mount point extensions.
> 
> We don't see a need to discuss items 2 and 3 further at this time. 
> Assuming  our understanding is correct, we will update the NI and LNE
> draft as soon as schema mount is updated as proposed.

Ok, since we haven't seen any objections to the proposal, I will
update the schema mount draft accordingly.


/martin


> 
> Lou
> (as contributor and NI/LNE draft co-author)
> 
> 
> On 8/30/2017 5:29 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
> > FYI I've asked folks in the routing area, i.e., the ietf users of schema 
> > mount, if they have an opinion on the node discussion. I will also do so on 
> > the point I raised on parent reference location. (Which is independent from 
> > your format change.) Clearly, if I'm the only one to be raising objections, 
> > I'll be the one in the rough on these points.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Lou
> > - as contributor
> >
> >
> > On August 30, 2017 3:42:26 AM Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:
> >>> Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Lada,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/28/2017 10:16 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>>>> Lou Berger píše v Po 28. 08. 2017 v 09:40 -0400:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>>>> PS is your view aligned with martin or our example?
> >>>>> If you mean shifting the XPath context node to the mount point instance, 
> >>> then
> >>>>> yes.
> >> So, going back to the original issue; does anyone have any objection
> >> to changing the XPath context for parent-reference as describied in my
> >> original post?
> >>
> >>
> >> /martin
> >>
>