Re: [netmod] 答复: FW: a question about ietf-hardware yang module

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Fri, 28 June 2019 08:07 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 34AF0120139 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 01:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 KFRHkcUcBRWV for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 01:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de (atlas5.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9B651200DF for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 01:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85372831; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:07:15 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.198]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id pOJ598DB4Jdh; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:07:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (verified OK)) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:07:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C82D20126; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:07:15 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10028) with ESMTP id X6iton6dEuTG; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:07:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from exchange.jacobs-university.de (sxchmb04.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "exchange.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (verified OK)) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07D1520128; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:07:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from anna.localdomain (10.50.218.117) by sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.1713.5; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:07:13 +0200
Received: by anna.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 501) id ABD7A300A8D732; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:07:13 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 10:07:13 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: <frank.fengchong@huawei.com>, <andy@yumaworks.com>, <netmod@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190628080713.ccrcxwnddubpwnsy@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, frank.fengchong@huawei.com, andy@yumaworks.com, netmod@ietf.org
References: <20190627200118.5el3ih6frka5elmh@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <20190627.220450.2014107990410615280.mbj@tail-f.com> <20190627201328.3gp7a6vgxzhxxwek@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <20190628.095220.132556743471062206.mbj@tail-f.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190628.095220.132556743471062206.mbj@tail-f.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
X-ClientProxiedBy: SXCHMB01.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.120) To sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/d6h7rgHS8bYohQpnb86MIkeEymg>
Subject: Re: [netmod] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiAgRlc6IGEgcXVlc3Rpb24gYWJvdXQgaWV0?= =?utf-8?q?f-hardware_yang_module?=
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 28 Jun 2019 08:07:20 -0000

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 09:52:20AM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:04:50PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 09:52:56PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > > > Yes, good point, I think the phrase "by a different hardware
> > > > > > component" should be removed. It seems last-change should change when
> > > > > > I unplug a component and I plug it back shortly after, i.e., a
> > > > > > component is replaced by itself. So we have:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >         "The last time a new hardware component has been added to the
> > > > > >          '/hardware/component' list, or a hardware component has been
> > > > > >          removed from the '/hardware/component' list, or a hardware
> > > > > >          component in the '/hardware/component' list has been
> > > > > >          replaced."
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think that this is still not clear what it means that a component
> > > > > has been replaced.  Do you mean "replaced by a different hardware
> > > > > component"?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Otherwise (unplug then plug in the same component), the system either
> > > > > detects the removal and thus updates last-change, or it doesn't detect
> > > > > the quick removal/insertion, and then it can't do anything.  Thus, I
> > > > > don't think this case needs special treatment, and the text could be
> > > > > just:
> > > > > 
> > > > >          "The last time a new hardware component has been added to the
> > > > >           '/hardware/component' list, or a hardware component has been
> > > > >           removed from the '/hardware/component' list."
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > The question is whether every implementor will figure out that if the
> > > > component found in some slot x-y-z is different from what is expected
> > > > to be in slot x-y-z, this must be seen as a remove + add combination.
> > > > If we include 'replace', then it may be clearer that even in the case
> > > > where what is in slot x-y-z has changed, the last-change must be
> > > > updated. (That is, the list element with the same name still exists
> > > > but it is different from what was there before with the same name.)
> > > 
> > > But then we're back to where we started - what exactly does "different
> > > from what was there before" mean?  Presumably that some leaf's value
> > > is different...?
> > >
> > 
> > Go back some emails, I have removed the 'different' phrase.
> 
> Perhaps we can say:
> 
>        [...] or a hardware
>        component in the '/hardware/component' list has been
>        replaced with a new hardware component with the same
>        name.
>

Do we want last-change to be updated when a component gets unplugged
and put back, i.e., a component got replaced with itself?

Can last-change be used to detect that something messed around with
the components (or a component is connected via a bad line)? Or is
last-change more strictly for the set of components has changed?

If I remove a component and I put it back slowly enough, I might get
two last-change updates (the removal and the addition). If a client
polls even more slowly, it will see that last-change has changed but
it will find the same components. Hence, it seems reasonable to not
exclude a replacement or a component with itself since it is a matter
of the time resolution with which changes are detected and reported
via the operational datastore.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>