Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Fri, 10 November 2017 13:35 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.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 6333212702E for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 05:35:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 JZ-Ha4JCNySr for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 05:35:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA2B612009C for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 05:35:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2054; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1510320941; x=1511530541; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ljrFQe7NGdg/GRPj80Dj+a0Ad8VbHMqMoMcjiVPnFIE=; b=CdpbRWkz8iUnpKJpLVK6N1y2ChxYMq2ktsB/4EmF4fbV2NnilT4NImK8 1iP//040YQ2npkguGZwHzrhSEKr+EwhiK0aEYMZDmC2gn+XmQJowzt+Bu vgED5xW2prboKi6acV+0qE3kYM0/AZ+AJ7OwsyJIk/pQjEBeVMQv/zOT/ Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BxAQBXqgVa/xbLJq1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYUHhCWLE5AOJpZQghEKhTsChHwWAQEBAQEBAQEBayiFHgEBAQECASMPAQVRCxgCAiYCAlcGAQwIAQGKFgipaYInixABAQEBAQEBAwEBAQEBASKBD4Ilg1uBaSkLgnaILIJjBaIhlQCCFYlnJIcgjjKHcIE5JQExgXI0IQgdFYMuhF5BjHcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,374,1505779200"; d="scan'208";a="182850"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Nov 2017 13:35:39 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.76] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-76.cisco.com [10.63.23.76]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAADZc5G020978; Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:35:38 GMT
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
References: <47B1141C-8979-4910-B7CA-2114B9C0D352@juniper.net> <68c6a4d5-fd3e-efdb-9c34-f69f241d6a31@cisco.com> <874lq4oq94.fsf@nic.cz> <7d8a8b01-6d3b-ac29-dd58-f2771ecdad56@cisco.com> <87d14rjwdq.fsf@nic.cz> <56ea1907-c2ed-1940-089c-527b33f0723e@cisco.com> <20171109181638.zel2otpzrptggvwz@elstar.local>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <4b1cec2b-3ad5-5650-08af-e297473b4c63@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:35:38 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171109181638.zel2otpzrptggvwz@elstar.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/b628YLMZOcc6W5HOZtEqwNfVrXY>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-07
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: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:35:47 -0000


On 09/11/2017 18:16, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 05:38:40PM +0000, Robert Wilton wrote:
>>>>>> 3. Sec 2.1 Glossary of New Terms:  "Schema" isn't actually defined
>>>>>> anywhere (RFC 7950 doesn't define this).  Should it be defined here?
>>>>>> The NMDA datastores draft had a similar issue and we choose to define
>>>>>> "datastore schema" instead.
>>>>> I think the right place for defining the term "schema" (and "data model"
>>>>> as well) is the specification of YANG because it is desirable that all
>>>>> documents related to YANG use the same meaning.
>>>> OK, 7950 doesn't define it today.  Is that a problem?
>>> "Schema tree" and "schema node" are defined and used a lot in 7950, so
>>> it might be good to define "schema" as well - meaning the schema tree
>>> with all associated semantics.
>> OK, but we can't add definitions to 7950 now.  Would it make sense to add
>> the definition to the NMDA draft and reference that?
> So what is the difference between "schema tree" and "schema"? Or to
> put it differently, what is "all associated semantics" that you are
> adding to a "schema tree" to obtain a "schema"? RFC 7950 says:
>
>     o  schema tree: The definition hierarchy specified within a module.

When I read this definition of schema tree, it makes me think that it 
applies to only a single module.  E.g. you could have the ietf-ip schema 
tree, or the ietf-interfaces schema tree, etc.

But I think of a"schema" as being the tree structure of all schema nodes 
for a defined set of modules.


>
> If I understand 'definition hierarchy' correctly, than it seems
> "schema" is just an abbreviation of "schema tree", i.e., there is no
> semantic difference between these two terms. If there is a difference,
> we need to be able to spell it out.

So, if "schema tree" refers to the schema nodes in one module, I think 
"schema" is different from "schema tree".  But perhaps I'm 
misinterpreting the "schema tree" definition.

Thanks,
Rob


>
> /js
>