Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt
Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Thu, 12 December 2013 17:32 UTC
Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 942A01ADF4E for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:32:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_CZ=0.445, HOST_EQ_CZ=0.904, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=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 osIe1b_Cvi6u for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:32:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A6501ADF12 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:32:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.29.2.202] (nat-5.bravonet.cz [77.48.224.5]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9DF7813FACF; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:31:53 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1386869514; bh=/yKQWpzR4S6ratnSpkQc3eq6PjlsIe8oWKzQiFlzZHg=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=A3c3waxFsAKyWgQTapBWY8krI5Uzl3wpFIqiirr2vFNrynppf4DLu6wSUGMGuo3YO MUjmbKUeHYq8T23gTdndt0AfvVfD23yIRb+QcXUeiuQ7clFmdYfxpyh75ghVOsGCRS ZmHnATHAMFZwpbP/pgBCiQYRCDLn2AKy8I/44WS8=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHS+SBn8DqV5ZJCvxv5AY5sSQ1Lsh5wTHhROpoigm4ydwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:31:50 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B386C034-A59A-4374-9846-6F2F821A0941@nic.cz>
References: <32246622.1386784076436.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <20131212.085209.387856404.mbj@tail-f.com> <001b01cef716$295e2520$6b01a8c0@oemcomputer> <004a01cef75c$b8610120$29230360$@comcast.net> <CABCOCHS+SBn8DqV5ZJCvxv5AY5sSQ1Lsh5wTHhROpoigm4ydwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.8 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Cc: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 17:32:03 -0000
Hi, just an idea: would it help if the server simply records the mapped DisplayString version in state data? Lada On 12 Dec 2013, at 18:19, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote: > Hi, > > What if these objects do not have corresponding SNMP values on the device? > What if the device does not implement SNMP? > > Are you suggesting we need duplicate versions for devices that do support SNMP, > with an "if-feature snmp" statement to make it conditional? What does it mean > if the 2 variants have different values? > > I think the new proposed text forces a device to limit the object to 7-bit ASCII > if the SNMP version of the object is supported. > > It seems old syntax is being forced on devices, not new syntax. > > > Andy > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:08 AM, ietfdbh <ietfdbh@comcast.net> wrote: > Hi, > > Personally, I think it would be simpler to just have the YANG objects be > constrained by DisplayString syntax, but then, I come from a country where > 7-bit ASCII covers my language of choice. It would be nice to have a > consistent underlying instrumentation without duplication of effort and > resources, but that would require choosing the least common denominator > (DisplayString). > > My second choice would be to treat them as separate instances, one of > DisplayString syntax, one of YANG string syntax. That way, we don't have to > worry about side effects of changing the YANG object via the MIB, or > changing the MIB object via YANG. If we want to internationalize the syntax, > you cannot do that to the MIB within SMI limits. Mapping between them if > they support different syntax raises a whole lot of issues for the database > handling and UI of an NMS, stands the chance of breaking existing > implementations if implementers handle the translations wrong or in a > non-interoperable manner, and stands the chance of misleading operators (and > applications) if the value of the MIB object is changed dynamically because > the value is changed (in any way) via translation from the YANG object. > > I think it would be better for standardization and interoperability if we do > not try to force-feed new syntax into the existing MIB object(s). If you > were trying to do this by updating the MIB, you would most certainly need to > define a new object (much like we had to do with Counter64s to replace > Counter32s). If the YANG object is treated as a separate object from the MIB > object, then if and when the MIB is updated, the MIB can add an object to > map to the YANG object, and deprecate the DisplayString syntax object. > > If the YANG object says it can be mapped, then I think the YANG object must > REQUIRE that it be implemented with DisplayString constraints, whether a > server implementation maps to the MIB or not. Assuming an NMS supports both > MIB and YANG queries, and an implementer MAY treat them as separate, then > the NMS must treat them as separate. If the implementer MAY treat them as > mapped, the NMS still needs to implement them as separate because they MAY > be separate, but the NMS probably must treat the NMS-side variables as > mapped to ensure they are in sync; otherwise reading the value via the MIB > without simultaneously reading the value via YANG would lead to the NMS > potentially displaying different values even though on the device the values > are the same. This optionality greatly increases the complexity of > implementing these objects on the NMS side. An NMS would need to determine > whether the agent/server implemented these as mapped or separate, presumably > by changing one and seeing if it affected the other, so it knew whether to > try to perform synchronization between the two. Lots of work for limited > benefit to the operator. And if NMS implementations handled synchronization > differently, the operator is stuck trying to manage with conflicting > information from different NMSs. > > It would be much better to standardize the expectation - either these > objects MUST be mapped and constrained by DisplayString syntax per the IETF, > or MUST be defined as separate objects of different syntax per the IETF > standard. Then an NMS implementer knows what to expect. > > David Harrington > ietfdbh@comcast.net > +1-603-828-1401 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy > > Presuhn > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:43 AM > > To: Martin Bjorklund > > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt > > > > Hi - > > > > > From: "Martin Bjorklund" <mbj@tail-f.com> > > > To: <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> > > > Cc: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>; <netmod@ietf.org> > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:52 PM > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt > > > > > > Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> wrote: > > > > Hi - > > > > > > > > >From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs- > > university.de> > > > > >Sent: Dec 11, 2013 12:38 AM > > > > >To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> > > > > >Cc: netmod@ietf.org > > > > >Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt > > > > > > > > > >On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 01:18:10PM -0800, Randy Presuhn wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > Anyway, for a standardized approach, someone would have to write > > a > > > > >> > document that defines how unicode code points are represented as > > > > >> > escaped charater sequences in DisplayStrings. I do not think that > this > > > > >> > document is in charge of doing this. Hence, until such a standard > is > > > > >> > written, I think things need to be implementation specific. > > > > >> > > > > >> Perhaps, though that is the route to being stuck with ASCII until > the > > > > >> successor to Netconf rolls along. > > > > > > > > > >Not necessarily. If you configure via NETCONF (or most CLIs these > > > > >days), you can use unicode characters. The code that maps names to > > > > >legacy non-unicode interfaces then needs to do suitable translations > > > > >to fit whatever constraint there is. > > > > > > > > Not if the data definition restricts the values to an ASCII > > > > subset, as has been proposed. What's in the draft at the > > > > moment will bring its own interoperability problems, but > > > > at least it's a baby step forward. > > > > > > So it seems we have a chance to fix this now. But I need to > > > understand what exactly you and/or Juergen propose. Preferrably > > > concrete text. I *think* that the proposal is something like this: > > > > > > o An implementation MUST allow any legal "string" (YANG string). > > > > There are good reasons to restrict formatting and control characters - > > I'll assume YANG strings do this already. If not, that's another long > > discussion. > > > > > o An implementation that maps this value to the corresponding MIB > > > object, which has size and character set limitations, MUST use > > > some mechanism out of the scope for this document to ensure that > > > the MIB object syntax is still valid. > > > > Yes this seems reasonable. > > > > But it doesn't cover a "round trip". If the value is modified via the MIB > > interface to include what looks like the implementation-specific encoding > > into ASCII of a non-ASCII Unicode code point, does retrieving that value > > via the Netconf interface get the Unicode code point or the > implementation- > > specific ASCII encoding of it? If it does (and I think it should) then > there > > needs to be some though put into what happens when the code point > > encoded using ASCII would, if converted to Unicode, be illegal (for > > whatever reason) in the YANG string. It's probably best to keep the > > SNMP instrumentation ignorant of all this, so code in the Netconf side > > would need determine whether any of the ASCII "escape sequences" > > would produce forbidden code points, and, in such cases, *not* evaluate > > those sequences and just pass them through unevaluated. > > > > > > > Also, just to make sure, we are talking about: > > > > > > system/location -- sysLocation > > > system/contact -- sysContact > > > interface/description -- ifAlias > > > > Perhaps also sysDescr (even though read-only, my comment above seems > > applicable, > > particularly since on at least some systems this comes from a static > > configuration > > file, and would be useful to support local language in some minimal way.) > > > > sysName (think IDN) might also be worth thinking about. There was a long > > debate > > about this a while back; I don't know what current thinking is. > > > > Randy > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > netmod@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Martin Bjorklund
- [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-system-mg… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… ietfdbh
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… ietfdbh
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… ietfdbh
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syste… Juergen Schoenwaelder