Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Tue, 29 May 2018 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.net>
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 7926812D7F7 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 May 2018 08:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 yN3aSK_zDclW for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 May 2018 08:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90432129C56 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 May 2018 08:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108163.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w4TFwkpC025027; Tue, 29 May 2018 08:58:46 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=0No2oc3ySSFziHCHtCzKXC/eVJHQDYHsUMLUHjBpE7E=; b=ZdOkrzTmITJBYucysl1OBvvNTblOTGDMxghVDXBJDn8zC/et7+updYpkXNiRFOOk6UAz k+Op/pd/nbhzv7CZcLB0WIiXZnGjhbcof5j5x/yCiZI+tRSd4EOt6eLjpWJlnopmzCeT NX++g/YP7CFvI+26jdCg5hpdlfAL7hT68DmgwGLdSx/d8D5dS9ay42hErxXHo26jHnss g3aVJM3VCoqiFRhXgfqqFJCLsXfIrdKgOISZ9NmOxUCWIxCfjVzWgB1LwNdIup7LWvSD 9GpBEpVVbHbLfNiUBSbqZ2OypXuv/TqHqy3iooPo7IaJoyRBpOvbceKZTEaCT878h5Su 3A==
Received: from nam01-bn3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam01lp0175.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.180.175]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2j964s0gf3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 29 May 2018 08:58:46 -0700
Received: from BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.200.153) by BYAPR05MB4389.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.202.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.820.5; Tue, 29 May 2018 15:58:33 +0000
Received: from BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::95f0:e564:96c8:7f1c]) by BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::95f0:e564:96c8:7f1c%2]) with mapi id 15.20.0820.010; Tue, 29 May 2018 15:58:33 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues
Thread-Index: AQHT1YJYRSnZmZlnhU6JIK4LoPfNTqQEcM6AgAYAzwCAAlYhgIAB08UAgAAyUgCAATikgIAAAaSAgAGHGgCAAAK9AIAAEH6AgAACpYCAAPWtAIABPh0AgACT0YCAAAY/gIAABasAgAALQACAAARkgIAANngAgAADfgCAAAdSAIAADKEAgASYmICAAD0hgIACdpWAgAAbLACAAAZCAIAAAyoAgCqWpwA=
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 15:58:33 +0000
Message-ID: <64990DFB-CF50-401A-A4EF-B6161C8D227B@juniper.net>
References: <CABCOCHSupojOLssLebB-mR_PybRLA_4bcbaNF6-8ZUrx1Pu53w@mail.gmail.com> <20180502.092527.2305319833268262996.mbj@tail-f.com> <9fca04b0-fb29-36b3-67aa-2f2c4fb98748@cisco.com> <20180502.112506.845305331945500257.mbj@tail-f.com> <20180502093626.ugsg6nq24a6vjtdn@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20180502093626.ugsg6nq24a6vjtdn@elstar.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.12]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BYAPR05MB4389; 7:Nz+bfbtg6spX/QZ2d3LjOYyeXql9jkfM+OCe7bdXQ+URj/cyT7rfpAE7Da/o8qDMJMCeT5wb7y+92Lc6MWdG2E8EmA6EC6ZKiH+T8lU7NBUsdwh1gCFVhSwJdpDA1BkCecjegdMjQ7yPLS6/lJkR9+klvpT7tCLv1dQikx6U2jwYh+MpQ4qMcMcOeps3ZnUFPvoZ2Fy9wMQ3Zok98PEm9xQrBfvoq2WIzZFctHsQhjHEpNLia2dr/d/g8HM2MR2N
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(5600026)(48565401081)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR05MB4389;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR05MB4389:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR05MB43896742F038CE358E0B749CA56D0@BYAPR05MB4389.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(3231254)(944501410)(52105095)(93006095)(93001095)(6055026)(149027)(150027)(6041310)(20161123558120)(20161123560045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123562045)(20161123564045)(6072148)(201708071742011)(7699016); SRVR:BYAPR05MB4389; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BYAPR05MB4389;
x-forefront-prvs: 0687389FB0
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39380400002)(39860400002)(346002)(396003)(366004)(376002)(199004)(189003)(377424004)(3660700001)(7736002)(4326008)(86362001)(2906002)(186003)(93886005)(25786009)(26005)(58126008)(59450400001)(6506007)(83716003)(229853002)(36756003)(6486002)(478600001)(76176011)(110136005)(97736004)(102836004)(3280700002)(6436002)(316002)(99286004)(14454004)(2900100001)(106356001)(6246003)(82746002)(8936002)(486006)(68736007)(81156014)(81166006)(8676002)(5660300001)(33656002)(6512007)(446003)(6116002)(5250100002)(3846002)(66066001)(53936002)(2616005)(105586002)(11346002)(476003)(305945005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR05MB4389; H:BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 1JadnDgzH8+Jfkb3uzBhDXI0Dgs9zcfZj1EAO0JKu2zzPfgHf0sBZmwLNF10iBB7xE2PDdXIVVl04acsSaAc8fCIkzh/NK+7Glu7DTEhcrtfKdJ61Gl1uUXC13Dy+WupphLtlVYpIseVNoBkgHIsu4mR6SgPTDtRYS5iUA/tEX53SjhzN9ySQvsJFZC9gij4
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <6F57DB776DB51D4C96C84978FA6FEAE4@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 690c4e7b-5b27-4bf0-d143-08d5c57d07d1
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 690c4e7b-5b27-4bf0-d143-08d5c57d07d1
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 29 May 2018 15:58:33.5037 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR05MB4389
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-05-29_05:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1805290177
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/YvJVgUp3uD9wxHXjGVEu-6aSG34>
Subject: Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues
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: Tue, 29 May 2018 15:58:50 -0000

[resurrecting this thread]

Currently the zerotouch draft has a normative reference to this draft.
I will this week post an update to the zerotouch draft to resolve the
netconf list thread "a couple zerotouch-21 issues".   It would be easy
for me to also switch back to using rc:yang-data, but I won't do so if
this draft remains an active work-in-progress.

Please see below for more.


On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 11:36 +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 11:25:06AM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> 
>> The primary use case is not "generic RPC messages", but standalone
>> instance documents, error-info structures, etc.
>
> The proper solution for rpcs and actions is to define error
> information as part of the rpc/action. YANG 1.1 does not support
> this but this is where it should be fixed.

Agreed, but note that the subscribed-notifications draft (both the
published -12 and unpublished -13) are relying on being able to do
just this, and YANG-next is years away...


> Standalone instance documents (not tied to datastores) may have their
> use cases as well but it feels odd to create support for standalone
> instance documents as extensions and then to create even more
> extensions to support augmentation of these instance documents and
> whoever knows what comes next.

What feels "odd" about this?  Is it not using the extension statement
as it was intended?


> For short-term needs, there is yang-data defined in RFC 8040.

To be clear, the "short-term needs" are:

  a) zerotouch: to define a standalone instance document
  b) notification-messages: to define a new notification message
  c) subscribed-notifications: to define error-info structures


As I recall, this draft (not RFC 8040) is needed:

  - for (a), because rc:yang-data doesn't support a top-level
    "choice" statement spanning "container" statements.

  - for (b), in order to augment a base yang-data "message" 
    structure with additional nodes.

  - AFAIAA, RFC 8040 is sufficient for (c)


Has anything changed?   I don't think that we can un-adopt this
draft with said dependencies, right?


Kent