[netmod] Config true/false Read/Write vs Read Only [was Re: [Netconf] WG adoption of NETCONF NDMA draft]

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Fri, 29 September 2017 10:46 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 A0783126C7A; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 03:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 i2Y9MYZdJNC7; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 03:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B62A8132076; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 03:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9052; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1506681961; x=1507891561; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=vFQvXd4NcNd1EJwj8MJO0sBziszLOt0I/cSPtD6jtIU=; b=bWreyUTJrQNS9bJF5Fp6Pigx/YcP95rcvFajnooTsup5nSNrk0artX5s 0ByLHe/u7noSvEn1GG3Jd6ShH6GOvxlDC2mDMh/IpHE7DvJ+gYD9HGybV x+nuzVAGqSuT7dXV/IIuy6rPUr2dJPKPpWMer6Qh7A4zNHntSObCoM33J s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CVAQAEI85Z/xbLJq1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgm+CP4QfixOQQSKQbYQ9gxMKhTsChG0VAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGQE?= =?us-ascii?q?FIwpcCRoqAgJXBgEMCAEBii2JSp1mgicnix4BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEdgy2DU4FqKwuLCYJgBaEsgW2Sd4IUiUgkhweNdYdZgTk1IoEOMiEIHRWGGIF?= =?us-ascii?q?PP4hwAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,452,1500940800"; d="scan'208,217";a="657908349"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Sep 2017 10:45:56 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.161] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-161.cisco.com [10.63.23.161]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8TAjulp025374; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 10:45:56 GMT
To: wangzitao <wangzitao@huawei.com>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, netconf <netconf@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <E6BC9BBCBCACC246846FC685F9FF41EA2AEC17A8@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <598c104e-4e7b-44bf-7328-0a7f6c05bafe@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 11:45:56 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E6BC9BBCBCACC246846FC685F9FF41EA2AEC17A8@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C23AC0AA0291209F29A1A142"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/bRCTM8c-xEepxs-VkcjUoBaiPJs>
Subject: [netmod] Config true/false Read/Write vs Read Only [was Re: [Netconf] WG adoption of NETCONF NDMA draft]
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, 29 Sep 2017 10:46:04 -0000

[Cross posting to Netmod WG]

Hi Michael,

On 26/09/2017 03:27, wangzitao wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
> I support adoption of this work. And I have some comments:
>
> ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
>
>          container where {
>
>            description
>
>              "Filter content with the specified criteria.  All given
>
>               criteria are logically AND:ed.";
>
>            leaf config {
>
>              type boolean;
>
>              description
>
>                "Filter for nodes with the given value for their
>
>                 'config' property.";
>
>            }
>
> <Michael>: Here defined config truth/false as a filter’s criteria. 
> According to NMDA revised datastore, there are four type (ct = config 
> true; cf = config false
>
>        rw = read-write; ro = read-only). Why not define the “rw” and 
> “ro” as other criteria?
The ct/cf and rw/ro are reporting two different things are 2 different 
things:

A YANG schema node can be labelled as config true, or config false.
Some YANG datastores can only be read by a client (e.g. <intended> and 
<operational>).
Other YANG datastores can be both read and also written by the client 
(e.g. <running>, <startup>, <candidate>).

Do you think that the NMDA draft is sufficiently clear on this point, or 
does this need to be clarified in some way?

Thanks,
Rob