Re: [netmod] status-description

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Mon, 04 May 2020 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 281DF3A0DC5 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 May 2020 10:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 xwuBk7yNIJCg for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 May 2020 10:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb31.google.com (mail-yb1-xb31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2639A3A0DC4 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 May 2020 10:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb31.google.com with SMTP id o139so63559ybc.11 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 May 2020 10:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=z3lWvaoB4BpYzJXfZxuty7YP1Xc9xdS7k7S/ZpM4Uf8=; b=FHdbDev6I38zZaAale1iqj5KJd/sinJsRHuO5t4lnTsLBZrf9j+ne698uOnJLv1zL3 KL7maO9U2G62F2EGM+ttvB0j0YSmSoP8i0u7ivfKH6ZRbuRr/hOYQ/H+nczHcHJ4fK4F JqOhTFSDQbLo9cNqjxPNvVjLdNb7biHeFv4xi0X0fP2V4FgQHJ0jTL5lY1UQ4ErXWayZ qO/Jk/nhQR6UFadHciEXpwq6g++m/KofeDykiDOiWqCc+4rHUFMMGL438Uda/wuxvOoo pTPUDIR4AcTfZ7XnIfNsa7NqbUNs5j2u4X/r7H5DoNGkvnLE8DLFaSTaPgmtNWZ7ez4n onUg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=z3lWvaoB4BpYzJXfZxuty7YP1Xc9xdS7k7S/ZpM4Uf8=; b=nmhghs7lJPKXy92u4rz3gFkKvcO0QNbFlEFhwPjjEv1asQfhtusUXKF9MBB3Mo5AWT bl6ba9gAfWvk3Vxc3ZzXS0qgbpNqnwrRL1aPdrlxCC/ts34h/Qmj2czKk5IPpUXI9OOx L8WS11wZDIdqfiIPkFbUSAywANPx87ryQuKW5XjinOWRHc+rnaheqYTW4OBiU2voDYS6 IIrilo+hVmu5ZaIRju3yv8Fe83iM5WIaNBw60B1Fx1YMmok5k1fi8mfbTmpz+TA5Vfem D4YGo26OreSIJ13f2NsIGw2d51JHVZ8lrfi1zeu03f2lIDXpO3UTrysfvS00Bd6H2Ght N8rg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubqKHEdT1IufBsZkkF85+eFnPFsM4S7CpPDA+fWTCRp2qUh8xq0 hrPGt796a41q8dpptt4QVyU+r5w8FBV7xJiTZHndRw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIIijwvm+cWhmSU7hHkagc5knEYOVSpJMA4BnLWo9vSMQIdVGDEqxQpEx8jFUMCBt7JvMF7wKCZ/whKSuiWKjc=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d015:: with SMTP id h21mr440573ybg.145.1588613536578; Mon, 04 May 2020 10:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3635DB7C-30F0-4214-BBD4-8A0C03177D0C@cisco.com> <DM5PR08MB263369B99B8F25B4FC383E0B9BAD0@DM5PR08MB2633.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <AM0PR07MB4004B4273EB535101F1308E4F0A60@AM0PR07MB4004.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <20200504.183817.1920254876593446739.id@4668.se>
In-Reply-To: <20200504.183817.1920254876593446739.id@4668.se>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2020 10:32:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHSbv8pUCJDV2pvN9GvhOnd-qPYsZv4G0r6QVgjiqfpS6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
Cc: Balazs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>, rrahman=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008893db05a4d5e966"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/gjUx4AmfnwITVUH12ZZcdwyvLu8>
Subject: Re: [netmod] status-description
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: Mon, 04 May 2020 17:32:21 -0000

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 9:38 AM Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > While status-description is not a critical part of this work, it is
> > still useful, does not harm and is such a small addition, I do not
> > understand why Martin objects.
>
> Every additional statement adds to the overall complexity.  As Jason
> explained, this particular statement doesn't really help much.
>
>

+1

We should not start down the path of specialized description statements.

I was part of a design team many years ago that was trying to
figure out why engineers were having so much trouble writing MIB modules.
One significant finding: people disliked working on MIBs because there were
so
many special little rules (CLRs) for every little detail in the module.

IMO we are starting to make the same mistake with YANG.


> /martin
>
>
Andy


>
> >
> > So why is status-description good:
> > Sometimes additional information is needed about deprecation,
> > obsolescence:
> > - is the item still fully functional?
> > - when will its functionality be removed?
> > - when will the schema node itself be removed?
> > - is there a replacement or workaround that could/should be used instead
> > - of deprecated/obsolete item?
> > The text can be used by tools. Using a separate statement to provide
> > this
> > information is a method to separate the main description from this
> > status specific description.
> > In most cases both in the CLI and on NMS GUIs only the description is
> > displayed.
> > However there is a possibility  to display the status information too.
> >
> > In a way it is similar why we have separate description, contact,
> > reference, organization statements under module.
> > All these are just text, they could all be pushed under a single
> > description statement. Tools can't act on these automatically, still
> > it is good to separate them.
> >
> > Regards Balazs
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Sterne, Jason
> > (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
> > Sent: 2020. április 29., szerda 23:38
> > To: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>;
> > Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>; netmod@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] status-description (WAS Re: mbj review of
> > draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01)
> >
> > I think we could wait until YANG 2.0 to add a description to the
> > status.
> >
> > Without a status description, an intelligent "YANG diff" of the models
> > would produce this:
> > a) new status deprecated statement
> > b) change to a description
> >
> > With a status description we'd identify this:
> > a) new status deprecated statement
> > b) new status description
> >
> > In both cases it is (a) that identifies the most clear information.
> >
> > In both cases (b) provides no additional information that can be acted
> > upon in an automated fashion. The tool could only flag that (b)
> > occurred in both cases and a human would then have to go look at it.
> >
> > If the only change between two versions of a module was a status
> > description change, then again a human would have to take a look. If
> > we add some sort of "nbc" tag to the leaf for tooling, then it also
> > doesn't matter which description changed.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Reshad Rahman
> > > (rrahman)
> > > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 5:43 PM
> > > To: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>; netmod@ietf.org
> > > Subject: [netmod] rev:status-description (WAS Re: mbj review of
> > > draft-verdt-
> > > netmod-yang-module-versioning-01)
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-dt/issues/51
> > >
> > >         o  3.4
> > >
> > >              leaf imperial-temperature {
> > >                type int64;
> > >                units "degrees Fahrenheit";
> > >                status deprecated {
> > >                  rev:status-description
> > >                    "Imperial measurements are being phased out in favor
> > >                     of their metric equivalents.  Use
> metric-temperature
> > >                     instead.";
> > >                }
> > >                description
> > >                  "Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit.";
> > >              }
> > >
> > >           I don't think rev:status-description is necessary / worth
> it.  This
> > >           can easily be written with the normal description statement
> > >           instead:
> > >
> > >              leaf imperial-temperature {
> > >                type int64;
> > >                units "degrees Fahrenheit";
> > >                status deprecated;
> > >                description
> > >                    "Imperial measurements are being phased out in favor
> > >                     of their metric equivalents.  Use
> metric-temperature
> > >                     instead.
> > >
> > >                     Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit.";
> > >              }
> > >
> > > While rev:status-description isn't strictly necessary, without it we'd
> > > have to modify the node's description as you pointed out. That'd make
> > > tooling more
> > > difficult: is the description change BC or NBC? Also, a user looking
> > > at a diff would need to go through the description change. Use of
> > > rev:status- description makes this easier to handle.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Reshad.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2020-03-20, 5:08 PM, "netmod on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)"
> > > <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of
> > > rrahman=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >     Hi Martin,
> > >
> > >     We've opened issues to track your review comments (see below).
> > > Will kick off separate therads for each issue.
> > >
> > >     https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-ver-
> > > dt/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aupdated-mod-rev-handling
> > >
> > >     Regards,
> > >     Reshad.
> > >
> > >     On 2020-03-10, 3:31 PM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Björklund"
> > > <netmod- bounces@ietf.org on behalf of mbj+ietf@4668.se> wrote:
> > >
> > >         Hi,
> > >
> > >         Here are my review comments of
> > >         draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >         o  3.1.1
> > >
> > >             o  In statements that have any data definition statements
> as
> > >                substatements, those data definition substatements MAY
> be
> > >                reordered, as long as they do not change the ordering
> or any
> > >                "rpc"
> > >                "input" substatements.
> > >
> > >           I think this needs to capture that no descendant statements
> to
> > >           "input" can be reordered.  Same for "output" (note, "input"
> and
> > >           "output" in both "rpc" and "action").
> > >
> > >
> > >         o  3.3
> > >
> > >             All revision labels that match the pattern for the
> "version"
> > >             typedef in the ietf-yang-semver YANG module MUST be
> interpreted
> > >             as
> > >             YANG semantic version numbers.
> > >
> > >           I don't think this is a good idea.  Seems like a layer
> violation.
> > >           What if my project use another dialect of semver, that
> wouldn't be
> > >           possible with this rule.  I think this needs to be removed.
> > >
> > >
> > >         o  3.3
> > >
> > >             Submodules MUST NOT use revision label schemes that could
> > > be confused
> > >             with the including module's revision label scheme.
> > >
> > >           Hmm, how do I ensure that this MUST NOT is handled
> correctly?  What
> > >           exactly does "could be confused with" mean?
> > >
> > >
> > >         o  3.3
> > >
> > >               In the filename of a YANG module, where it takes the
> form:
> > >               module-
> > >               or-submodule-name ['@' revision-label] ( '.yang' /
> > > '.yin' )
> > >
> > >           Should this section update 5.2 of RFC 7950?  I know that 5.2
> just
> > >           says "SHOULD".  But existing tools implement this SHOULD,
> and they
> > >           need to be updated to handle this new convention.
> > >
> > >           But I wonder if this a good idea.  It means that a tool that
> looks
> > >           for a module with a certain revision date cannot simply
> check the
> > >           filenames, but need to parse all available modules (wijust
> > > to find the
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >         o  3.4
> > >
> > >              leaf imperial-temperature {
> > >                type int64;
> > >                units "degrees Fahrenheit";
> > >                status deprecated {
> > >                  rev:status-description
> > >                    "Imperial measurements are being phased out in favor
> > >                     of their metric equivalents.  Use
> metric-temperature
> > >                     instead.";
> > >                }
> > >                description
> > >                  "Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit.";
> > >              }
> > >
> > >           I don't think rev:status-description is necessary / worth
> it.  This
> > >           can easily be written with the normal description statement
> > >           instead:
> > >
> > >              leaf imperial-temperature {
> > >                type int64;
> > >                units "degrees Fahrenheit";
> > >                status deprecated;
> > >                description
> > >                    "Imperial measurements are being phased out in favor
> > >                     of their metric equivalents.  Use
> metric-temperature
> > >                     instead.
> > >
> > >                     Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit.";
> > >              }
> > >
> > >
> > >         o  3.5
> > >
> > >           The example modules should be legal YANG modules.  Use e.g.
> > >           "urn:example:module" as namespace.
> > >
> > >           Also, the modules are missing the last "}", which confuses
> the
> > >           "rfcstrip" tool.
> > >
> > >
> > >         o 4.1.1
> > >
> > >             Alternatively, the first example could have used the
> revision
> > >             label
> > >             "1.0.0" instead, which selects the same set of
> > >             revisions/versions.
> > >
> > >             import example-module {
> > >               rev:revision-or-derived 1.0.0;
> > >             }
> > >
> > >           Shouldn't this be s/1.0.0/2.0.0/g ?
> > >
> > >
> > >         o  5
> > >
> > >           I think the module name "ietf-yl-revisions" should be
> changed to
> > >           "ietf-yang-library-revisions".   "yl" is not a well-known
> acronym.
> > >
> > >
> > >         o  5.2.2
> > >
> > >           Wouldn't it be better if the leaf
> "deprecated-nodes-implemented"
> > >           and
> > >           "obsolete-nodes-absent" were of type "boolean" rather than
> type
> > >           "empty"?
> > >
> > >
> > >         o  7.1
> > >
> > >           The text says:
> > >
> > >             All IETF YANG modules MUST include revision-label
> statements for
> > >             all
> > >             newly published YANG modules, and all newly published
> revisions
> > >             of
> > >             existing YANG modules.  The revision-label MUST take the
> form of
> > >             a
> > >             YANG semantic version number
> [I-D.verdt-netmod-yang-semver].
> > >
> > >           I strongly disagree with this new rule.  IETF modules use a
> linear
> > >           history, so there are no reasons to use "modified semver".
> > >
> > >           It is ok to use rev:nbc-changes if needed, though.
> > >
> > >
> > >         o 7.1.1
> > >
> > >           There is a missing " in:
> > >
> > >            4.  For status "obsolete", it is RECOMMENDED to keep the
> "status-
> > >                description" information, from when the node had status
> > >                "deprecated, which is still relevant.
> > >          HERE  -----------^
> > >
> > >
> > >         o  8
> > >
> > >           s/CODE ENDS>/<CODE ENDS>/
> > >
> > >
> > >         o Both YANG modules
> > >
> > >           All extensions should specify the grammar; i.e., in which
> > >           statements
> > >           they can be present and which substatements they can have.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >         /martin
> > >
> > >         _______________________________________________
> > >         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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>