Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll - instance-data

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Tue, 09 October 2018 15:23 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 23ECC13133D; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 08:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.955
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.955 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.456, 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ipxRSollIoCn; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 08:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60E26131338; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 08:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9807; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1539098623; x=1540308223; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=+cyQxDETG2RCydWPMnQpaeAzNMZ5jtHlBNh4WajO6ew=; b=PolHXvNza/3zCdCoGjB+mJ22L0MtWEPzVI7N4cNEkds+b/RhUBJcZOc9 dTudEPnPvJfW32/AvQCzke3qq3e4fYGwFjCYXNO5US7XXPsaFtm54iucf 3cHKQRg9ZarOLuqxpfr4Y859ZsOPx5IZFmQ4Aj5RaUdJggNrVndXOGaS9 c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BdAABHx7xb/xbLJq0YAUoaAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?CAQEBAQcCAQEBAYFlAoJqfyiDdYh0jWORL4VUgWYNGAEKhANGAoRaOBYBAwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAgEBAm0cDIU6AQEBAwEBIUQHCxALGCoCAicwBgEMBgIBAReDBgGCAQ+Hcpx?= =?us-ascii?q?3gS4fhFiFHgWLUIFBP4E5gmuDGwEBgS4BEgEHAoMXglcClBiJXgmJJ4cdBhe?= =?us-ascii?q?BToRngmiGYoJejGuGLoFZISc9cTMaCBsVGiGCbIsXhT8+MIoUgj4BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,360,1534809600"; d="scan'208,217";a="7112902"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Oct 2018 15:23:40 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.158] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-158.cisco.com [10.63.23.158]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w99FNe2b012732; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 15:23:40 GMT
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Bal=c3=a1zs_Lengyel?= <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "lberger@labn.net" <lberger@labn.net>
Cc: "netmod-chairs@ietf.org" <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <b8f163ea-ea33-53a6-3fac-944b8d6c03ec@labn.net> <20181009.125822.1764836266889190398.mbj@tail-f.com> <58f8baa5-320c-a75e-62ef-e277d488b962@ericsson.com>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <aa265ecf-0ec5-9edb-935f-900ff2133793@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 16:23:40 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <58f8baa5-320c-a75e-62ef-e277d488b962@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------36F44BB1CAAFD6DD6A86A673"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.63.23.158, dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-158.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/eo3jHIMAiuszZUt0yEwoj2IZ5WQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll - instance-data
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: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 15:23:46 -0000

I would expect that there are many other alternative uses of YANG 
instance data.

Some possible alternatives that I can think of:
- Storing the configuration of a device at some point in time to a file, 
e.g. for archive or audit purposes.
- Storing diagnostics data, if the format of the data was defined as 
YANG data models.  Here I could imagine the data potentially being 
stored in a compressed tar file that could be taken off the device.
- Allowing YANG instance data to potentially be carried within other IPC 
message formats.
- Perhaps file based default instance data used as part of a templating 
solution.
- File based factory defaults.

Thanks,
Rob


On 09/10/2018 13:15, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> Hello Martin,
>
> I agree that this document shall be about defining the file format,
> and server capabilities shall only be a use-case.)
>
> I already took out a lot of text, that explicitly recommended using
> instance data for documenting capabilities. Server capabilities are 
> only mentioned in the introduction chapter.
> As you wrote: There is no _normative_  specification of how a server 
> would document its capabilities, because this is
> what the WG requested, so I removed it.
>
> I see that I forgot to change the title and the introduction can be 
> reworded to make
> it more clear that documenting server capabilities is just a use-case.
> (I still see it as the primary use-case for instance data.)
>
>  If I promise to change the title and clarify the introduction can you 
> support adoption?
>
> regards Balazs
>
> On 2018. 10. 09. 12:58, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I still think that this draft should either be split into two, one for
>> specifiying the generic file format (ok with examples), and one for
>> "Documenting Server Capabilities", or the document should just be
>> about the file format (+ *examples*).
>>
>> [The current document mixes the two; it's a bit as if we had "The
>> YANG language and a model for interfaces" as one doc...]
>>
>> It is clear that the document specifies a file format for YANG
>> instance data, which is good.  But it is not clear if the document
>> intends to specify how a server should document its capabilities.
>>
>> The Introduction mainly talks about why it is important to document
>> server capabilities.  But then AFAICT there is no normative
>> specification of how a server would document its capabilities.
>>
>>
>> /martin
>>
>>
>> Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> This is start of a two week poll on making
>>> draft-lengyel-netmod-yang-instance-data-04 a working group
>>> document. Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or
>>> "no/do not support".  If indicating no, please state your reservations
>>> with the document.  If yes, please also feel free to provide comments
>>> you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG document.
>>>
>>> The poll ends Oct 22.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Lou (and co-chairs)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod