Re: [netmod] yang-data-ext issues

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

On 16/04/2018 17:07, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Robert Wilton <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Don't groupings have a somewhat similar concern?
>
>      E.g. if two groupings define the same data node name and are used
>     at the same point then you would get a namespace clash, but YANG
>     does not disallow the groupings:
>
>           grouping foo_widget {
>             leaf name {
>               type string;
>               description "Name of my foo widget";
>             }
>           }
>
>           grouping bar_widget {
>             leaf name {
>               type string;
>               description "Name of my bar widget";
>             }
>           }
>
>           container all_widgets {
>             uses foo_widget;
>             uses bar_widget;
>           }
>
>
>     The principal difference here, is that the compiler can easily
>     check and reject the conflict at the uses statements.
>
>     Hence I think that it would be good if we could find a solution
>     for yang-data-ext that doesn't not require all root yang-data
>     nodes to be unique, since that feels somewhat clunky.  I.e. my
>     preference is to keep them less restrictive, as Martin has
>     proposed, if this is feasible.
>
>
>
>
> It is not clunky that 2 top-level YANG data nodes in the same module
> have unique names. This is simple and deterministic.
> This restriction has not been a problem so far.
I agree with the statements above.

But it is not clear to me that yang-data-ext is really defining new top 
level data nodes that are part of the same tree/namespace as the 
configuration/state nodes.  In Martin's examples they were used within 
RPCs, and it the forcing the names to be unique in that context that I 
think would be clunky.  E.g. in Martin's example forcing different names 
for "reason" and "user-info" doesn't seem to be helpful.

>
>
> The yang-data statement has to define the context or new abstract 
> namespace,
> or whatever this hack is called.
Perhaps.  I think that this depends on how they are used.

Could a fix for this be something along the lines of:
  - yang-data names must be unique amongst other top level data nodes 
within the module.
  - if yang-data extensions are used at the top level then their name 
must be used as a single top level container.
  - if a yang-data extension is used within another structure then the 
yang-data name is excluded, and the top level nodes defined in the 
yang-data definition are used ....

>   Every tool that implements yang-data has to be able
> to interpret a yang-data statement exactly the same way.
>
> If you want to reinvent XSD substitutionGroup, then do it right.
I'm not familiar with them.  From a quick read, I don't see how they are 
related to the problem that we are trying to solve here.

Thanks,
Rob


>
>
>     Thanks,
>     Rob
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>     On 16/04/2018 15:36, Andy Bierman wrote:
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     I am strongly opposed to this change because it breaks the rule
>>     in YANG 1.1
>>     that there cannot be 2 sibling nodes defined in the same module
>>     namespace.
>>
>>     IMO since any yang-data nodes are ALLOWED to be used at the
>>     top-level,
>>     then these top-level nodes cannot have conflicting names.
>>
>>     It is very important when parsing an instance document that the
>>     instance data
>>     can be associated with the correct schema. This is not possible
>>     if the
>>     same top-level node has multiple yang-data nodes defined.
>>
>>     If one needs to define data that is not top-level, (1) use
>>     augment-yang-data
>>     or (2) use a different module.
>>
>>
>>     Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:56 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi,
>>
>>         While preparing draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-02, it turned
>>         out that
>>         it is not clear what, if any, restrictions should be enforced for
>>         yang-data structures.  Even among the authors we have
>>         different ideas
>>         for how this should work.
>>
>>         Background:
>>
>>         In 8040, the original yang-data extension had a restriction
>>         that said
>>         that a yang-data structure MUST have exactly one container,
>>         since it
>>         wouldn't be possible to have a yang-data structure in an XML
>>         instance
>>         document otherwise.
>>
>>         Since people want to use yang-data structures in other
>>         places, this
>>         restriction was lifted in the new draft:
>>
>>            There is no longer an assumption that a yang data
>>         structure can
>>            only be used as a top-level abstraction, instead of nested
>>         within
>>            some other data structure.
>>
>>
>>         With this in mind, here's a use case that I think we ought to
>>         support:
>>
>>           rpc my-first-rpc {
>>             description
>>               "Bla bla...
>>                If an error occurs, <error-info> will contain an
>>         instance of
>>                the yang-data structure 'my-first-rpc-error-info'.";
>>             ...
>>           }
>>
>>           yang-data my-first-rpc-error-info {
>>             leaf reason { ... }
>>             container user-info { ... }
>>           }
>>
>>           rpc my-second-rpc {
>>             description
>>               "Bla bla...
>>                If an error occurs, <error-info> will contain an
>>         instance of
>>                the yang-data structure 'my-second-rpc-error-info'.";
>>             ...
>>           }
>>
>>           yang-data my-second-rpc-error-info {
>>             leaf reason { ... }
>>             leaf important-url { ... }
>>           }
>>
>>         (maybe in the future we could even have a YANG extension
>>         statement to
>>         formalize the description:
>>
>>            rpc my-first-rpc {
>>              ...
>>              opx:error-info-structure my-first-rpc-error-info;
>>            }
>>
>>         but this is not point now.)
>>
>
>
>
> I see no reason to reinvent the grouping-stmt.
> You could easily say opx:error-info-structure argument is a grouping name
> as it is a yang-data name.
>
>>
>>         In the example above, note that the leaf "reason" is present
>>         in both
>>         structures.  IMO this is not a problem, since these
>>         structures are
>>         used in different contexts.
>>
>>         My point is that I think we should impose as few restrictions as
>>         possible to the yang-data extension.  It should be up to the
>>         user of
>>         yang-data to ensure that the structure is defined in such a
>>         way so
>>         that it can be used properly.  For example, a structure that is
>>         supposed to describe an XML instance document cannot define
>>         two leafs
>>         at the top level.
>>
>>         If the WG agrees with what I wrote above, we need to change the
>>         augment-yang-data extension so that you would write for example:
>>
>>           yx:augment-yang-data /ex:my-first-rpc-error-info/ex:user-info {
>>             ...
>>           }
>>
>>         Comments?
>>
>>
>>
>>         /martin
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         netmod mailing list
>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     netmod mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>
>
>