Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 17 January 2018 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.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 8F1F112AF77 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:32:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.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 Xhkkctv8GdFr for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:32:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.33.93]) (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 75702124B17 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:32:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmgw4 (unknown [10.0.90.85]) by gproxy8.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C27091AB6A9 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:04:04 -0700 (MST)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id zX401w01D2SSUrH01X43Ky; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:04:04 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=G85sK5s5 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=RgaUWeydRksA:10 a=TC8IOceEIMk7EyGsMfwA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=P/Wf/4WasKatK2V81p1NEhwKlfsDZZiYzH5TQHxXF7U=; b=Jf/URp5WIQm6v6jSVLZp6+JKnZ uTL7OBd1IWYEWeWFrWW1Pmxpxnwc7MJ3110r0z7F31OHJI05IGeFsKdkzsNIR4xS9IM6BZ0JZuAfL ItYzL2oGL8nrClfNIiKEhYTse;
Received: from pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.86.101]:52058 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1ebt0C-0045wy-OM; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:04:00 -0700
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Cc: rwilton@cisco.com, netmod@ietf.org
References: <e3d5c195-a737-057a-5911-daa50a06c4bd@labn.net> <20180117.154205.449528767667713089.mbj@tail-f.com> <16104ca0948.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <20180117.171817.479473055872371790.mbj@tail-f.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <5d8b65cf-e75e-e11e-a41a-722697ec3af8@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:03:58 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180117.171817.479473055872371790.mbj@tail-f.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.86.101
X-Exim-ID: 1ebt0C-0045wy-OM
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.86.101]:52058
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 3
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/_btyPBGZ2CznKftqWy_sFl8yQR4>
Subject: Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library
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, 17 Jan 2018 19:32:03 -0000


On 1/17/2018 11:18 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
...
>>> My main concern is actually the YL version.  I strongly think SM need
>>> to use YL-bis rather that the old YL, so that it can support NMDA.
>>>
>> Right now to SM is independent of Yang Library version and can run
>> with either.
> No this is not correct.  SM uses a grouping from the old YANG
> library (for the "use-schema" case),
I thought YLbis was an updat e to UL (i.e., no name change) as such SM 
can include either.

>   and talks about mounting
> "modules-state" ("inline" case).
In informative descriptions only.  Certainly these can be changed to 
allow for YL-bis if need be.

>> I certainly would expect use of Yang Library bis and nmda
>> to have advantages.
>>
>>> The implementation effort for supporting the new YL in clients and
>>> servers is minimal, esp. when compared to the efforts involved in
>>> supporting SM.
>>>
>>> Adding an indirection is (for me) less important, but it has the
>>> benefit of solving the two issues (a) and (b) above, and I haven't
>>> seen any technical problem with it.
>>>
>> (A) has implementation implications and those participating in the
>> discussion at the time expressed as not being worth the cost.
>> I don't believe b was seen as a significant issue either.
>>
>>> Do you have any technical concerns with using an annotation as an
>>> indirection?
>>>
>> The technicsl issue I have with the approaches the same one that was
>> raised when debated previously, ie the implementation overhead of
>> requiring inline schemas to be available at the top level.
> Ok.  I'm ok with keeping the inline case as it is.  However, I think
> we need to use the new YL-bis, so that we can support the NMDA.
Given that NMDA support is not yet fully defined, we're still in the 
transition period where support for both NMDA and non-NMDA 
implementations need to be considered.  Rob presented some options 
earlier in the thread that I think captures this.

Lou


>
>
> /martin
>
>
>
>
>