Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root?

Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> Tue, 05 May 2020 10:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
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 404A93A15F8 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2020 03:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.923
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.923 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, PDS_NAKED_TO_NUMERO=1.177, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=4668.se header.b=zG5CSUN+; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=q/V+lMJC
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 7SbZkHZDGIpS for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2020 03:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C4873A0745 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2020 03:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 682745C00CD; Tue, 5 May 2020 06:30:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 05 May 2020 06:30:16 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=4668.se; h=date :message-id:to:cc:subject:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm1; bh= sQqCTLOIyvd/Jwe0oBAG/O4Psh64XSIeFsUIH1ziF94=; b=zG5CSUN+qymguhjo JYP4n6xtjr9PhOwR8K0588Ke0G2C4tha2ziWs3U2OmneFTXynSsw2V/pYLxsgawV Fd4ytlVybaCyhGfYfR0oTe9Kvq2cT8qAZB3/V537SALaMBmdvqSsB9SkDP+PFxhs js8thp+bbz6OYOO+hTsCIego3yY1V/SvXSSJf8ym7FpDIbP40brhBRK3X6Jg+LPx vGENR0LS1UjityKv7KT8OnR2aEi1WU71eM41aVzptU/3afp0FKeOaeX/lwb3iY9j Z7BIMfwrUVfy8vrX0GRxXmVI8vwmbPxsHbleXE7xT5UOoGIPPZzYZJXWNQJEXy5K l2Lf6g==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=sQqCTLOIyvd/Jwe0oBAG/O4Psh64XSIeFsUIH1ziF 94=; b=q/V+lMJCKmmkyuIjGUG8S1JvwZeenP88a2GiKZj8oD9xUznc5iNGtJ+pE XFfoZUJGm7sxY0GcZQEO0vnOYGx6MGFl1cezznzrgKoEz0+7KXJ8H3xBgJB16vYB UOLir6K2RBJc0+TBicAjAPEpM65KuLq2jJqFdT6wP6exgn5YyOuhCDgKqEJZwnc1 BZfICTqbCVg1B4HENgX6c++oT3bN62O2IHwly2Oi1cG+bOLgZWO+KzPwoaUZJHEs idCVzrEy53PFT3zfP8xg847xHst6hrQ2J95Jos77lYR/Hq2YhA83XCCBrkyLmJOG pCiFY+3ATBDjJu9f4yxwhOipXGrYg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:N0CxXnfaxRGeacRsGL6_UxAeAlapXA_DZVWP-xwPM-PGBMbGYwmaPw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrjeeigddvjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffkvffuhfgjfhfogggtgfesthhqre dtredtudenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhtihhnuceujhpnrhhklhhunhguuceomhgsjhdoihgv thhfseegieeikedrshgvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeitdethfdthfekteelteekve eifefhudduueekvdefleegtdevgefgteefjefgleenucfkphepudehkedrudejgedrgedr geegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmh gsjhdoihgvthhfseegieeikedrshgv
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:N0CxXvjVKWaUudCdOqGYWjeHn2DiX0LWGyj-sulhaxXA7jrlXNzR6A> <xmx:N0CxXgLUo-ujYAzKNKa0rocZMTcvkuxGRzTXezZHyiXa-briz31sGQ> <xmx:N0CxXhE-ek2XtvjTTVjEQUFrn00cTlcnceJ3MEAALobnukuaIkd3Bw> <xmx:OECxXqRPoOPjvN4yNazo7o_jpa988rX60hveCn2--3mzACCoBhk2nQ>
Received: from localhost (unknown [158.174.4.44]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 319EE3280065; Tue, 5 May 2020 06:30:15 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 12:30:13 +0200
Message-Id: <20200505.123013.1305793718479337992.id@4668.se>
To: per@hedeland.org
Cc: netmod@ietf.org, mbj+ietf@4668.se
From: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
In-Reply-To: <7554d71a-256f-9b29-02e3-e2e7a3e0e474@hedeland.org>
References: <f96eaddb-47f2-9f43-9e7f-5d60987adb27@hedeland.org> <20200505095510.gs454i4ubmbs6m5u@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <7554d71a-256f-9b29-02e3-e2e7a3e0e474@hedeland.org>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 25.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/YQCAjU6zebo--MpGYM0biYAsTGE>
Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root?
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: Tue, 05 May 2020 10:30:18 -0000

Per Hedeland <per@hedeland.org> wrote:
> On 2020-05-05 11:55, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 11:45:41AM +0200, Per Hedeland wrote:
> >> On 2020-05-05 11:00, Martin Björklund wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> If we were to redo YANG, I would prefer to have a single statement
> >>> "operation", either on the top-level, or tied to a node.
> >>
> >> So, no rpc statement, and thereby no possibility to extend NETCONF
> >> with new RPCs? (Or to be precise, YANG would extend NETCONF with
> >> exactly one RPC, called "operation"?)
> >>
> >
> > OLD
> >
> >   rpc foo {}
> >   list something { action bar {} }
> >
> > NEW
> >
> >   operation foo {}
> >   list something { operation bar {} }
> 
> Yes, that much is obvious, my question was really about the NETCONF
> encoding.
> 
> > Syntactic sugar if you will.
> 
> So you're saying that the NETCONF encoding of "operation foo" at the
> top level would be an RPC called "foo"

Yes.

> while the NETCONF encoding of
> "operation foo" elsewhere would be an RPC called "action"?

Yes; or called something else.


/martin