Re: [netmod] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-09

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Fri, 02 July 2021 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 EA57D3A21F2 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jul 2021 08:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.886
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 He_xuANlnA5D for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jul 2021 08:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12e.google.com (mail-lf1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11C1A3A21F6 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Jul 2021 08:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id a15so18685783lfr.6 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Jul 2021 08:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3VRvxqwZQaJ3jU9LPxSaadXKFoKo7yX0h92J78muLBo=; b=1nPhTv+j+pIq/9Acp8V7naHiIlRQBZxljLzKpCw9BHD8Xm3BMUtpyPLgJVdzaQu+A6 S6o2mC8FpI6oZWcndPFXMU0cWle2gV2x5X3oLE0+79x+33mgeq90B17ySwsaSTb8X02o h7mzYloCnYE70xLumeHXfrcuPL5lwu373c7BBtPC62EC7ZLJjBuDNDsPZ/CEs+YSMfe+ Ux59O8V8rIvcv+N7u2QiI6RCx8or/oy2clBxbkIeI0eH2mtC470N3IZZG0YOcVmK2eK1 EnCjnJhJKj8a8aM3mV24CHc1eXT1o20WFPnqjEkfmSQXBWZm75e3L9OKttag9VArouob ioSg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3VRvxqwZQaJ3jU9LPxSaadXKFoKo7yX0h92J78muLBo=; b=Xla1iRo2UHKYksw8wXCcC8iUHGWWnokxZbmH9gW1xA3pvfBGqrXPAVQhc60zimDz6E 5OXY19fPJ6Nd9np+ROSlHiYx5HM/lsZJIljvnZv1lNSb5Qs6zvlw639HyITZydYAYfVk zt8IPRqvm/tAuRFLGWs/FuRLdFP0+M54gKKPJ9ao/hnUaBxuoDfi9QCCv1Mjyl3u2aZg s5+UTdE5j3YFMLnks2e8nzyB/eV9HrC/Y6xDfaJFN6FjFQU2v32Nd3ZE0z4KWzx3iLkE 0spEoAtdmR2ktGBakr34Dgo9xyhk9NP0l2czx24ttqneBx6UZW8sOWH7EOXzKOBgmm+D gwjg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532NOlQjAT/fRpK7DSNz695cU+hupfGvN/yOS4G9zhI6peDu/d2t UzpB6nPpSwLGZceekKtQurCdf6qbmyQ/rWeSNzaiDw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy48tn89eJUdB9K8KUtij5HDPMujuJoEH1DEvOROUiP1uSTMzFlTW25Y7+v2TxtQBDIFNuNIh+fbghovZuzYq8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:374b:: with SMTP id a11mr95844lfs.377.1625239146862; Fri, 02 Jul 2021 08:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <162523075802.5464.801347526657945@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <162523075802.5464.801347526657945@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2021 08:18:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQG5VM55MV_vatG79KhncpHbFtiAcinxedg8zqXJQPtWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shwetha Bhandari <shwetha.bhandari@gmail.com>
Cc: ops-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff.all@ietf.org, Last Call <last-call@ietf.org>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000063f8905c6257a83"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Wg3o7qZJ3miF0t87VWAL3iecNPs>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-09
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, 02 Jul 2021 15:19:13 -0000

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 5:59 AM Shwetha Bhandari via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Reviewer: Shwetha Bhandari
> Review result: Has Nits
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
> These
> comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects
> of
> the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be
> included
> in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs
> should
> treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
>
>  Summary:
> This is a Standards Track document that defines an RPC operation to compare
> management datastores and returns diffs between the datastores as a
> yang-patch.
>
> While  most access management of the RPC, ensuring availability of the
> server
> by rate limiting are considered I have an open question to authors:
> where/how
> will operational metrics such as rate of requests received, errors, rate
> limiting if applied, server resources consumed to process the request etc,
> about this new RPC be defined and reported? This is useful information for
> server operation where this RPC is enabled.
>
>

There are no standard YANG objects to monitor the server resources.
This new operation is likely to consume a lot of resources so I understand
your concern.
The actual diff results may depend on implementation choices and impact
resources used.
E.g. comparing 2 datastores that are constantly changing while they are
being compared.

I am not sure what changes to the draft are needed at this time.
A resource monitoring module would be a generalized solution but it does
not belong in this draft.

Nits:
> The RESTCONF example content-type is json but it is set to
> application/yang-d
> that is not present in the registry - should it be
> application/yang-patch+json?
>
>
I think it is supposed to be application/yang-data+json


Andy