Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Sat, 24 February 2018 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 4A88C1270AE for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 05:54:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 hU3WZ5IfOuHX for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 05:54:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2045126CBF for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 05:54:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tops.chopps.org (47-50-69-38.static.klmz.mi.charter.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E142E62989; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:54:51 +0000 (UTC)
References: <090b951e-8627-183b-6fe1-ae46da5a90bc@labn.net> <195c3186-25ce-3019-1eda-34096fbc8de3@cisco.com> <20180223.103628.1174590223555999274.mbj@tail-f.com>
User-agent: mu4e 1.0; emacs 25.3.1
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Cc: rwilton@cisco.com, netmod@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <20180223.103628.1174590223555999274.mbj@tail-f.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 08:54:50 -0500
Message-ID: <87woz2a3x1.fsf@chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/i23QO2LmGfUP3tG5etjH1Ra-0Xs>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount
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: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 13:54:55 -0000

My position,

It may be the case that there's even a better cleaner solution; however, it's simply too late for major modifications to this work that don't actually address functional failures.  The draft as proposed works for the people who need to get work done.

We have multiple pending RFCs - MISREF on this document. These RFCs would have to be pulled from the RFC EDITOR queue, and reworked to be compliant again, and this very well could lead to discovering issues with your new proposal. Any new issues discovered in either the pending RFCs *or* in the new solution would then need to be worked out and fixed. Please recall that this actually occurred on the first round (i.e., doing the examples led to discovering problems with the drafts), so it's not unreasonable at all to assume this would happen again.

Look this just isn't a simple change your proposing. It involves a large upheaval, killing the pending RFC status on multiple documents that the industry is waiting on. Please see this.

Thanks,
Chris.


Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Hi Lou,
>>
>> I think that this solution is inferior to the model presented in
>> pre-09.
>
> I agree.  Servers that are NMDA-compliant, or implements YANG Library
> bis will have to present schemas in two different structures,
> depending on where the schema is used, and clients will have to code
> for both.  With the solution in pre-09, there is just one structure.
> A single structure also has other benefits (apart from being simpler),
> e.g., if we augment it with the meta data that has been discussed
> recently, we can augment a single structure.

> /martin
>
>
>
>> I would prefer that we publish pre09 instead, potentially including
>> the -08 model in the appendix if that helps progress the document in a
>> more expedient fashion.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On 22/02/2018 16:18, Lou Berger wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > (I have a bunch of different roles WRT this work. This mail is being
>> > sent as an individual - as chair, I fully support the previous chair
>> > statements on this draft.)
>> >
>> > Chris and I have come up with a proposal on how to provide full NMDA
>> > as part the existing schema-mount module. Our motivation was to
>> > enable full NMDA support with *minimal* change to the model and
>> > disruption to the LC'ed work. The key NMDA limitation, with -08, that
>> > we are aiming to address is the ability to support different mounted
>> > schema in different datastores for non-inline mount points. (See more
>> > detailed description below if interested full nuances of limitations
>> > of -08)
>> >
>> > What we came up with was to simply add a (leaf)list to identify in
>> > which datastores a
>> > schema-mount schema is valid/present. This is somewhat similar to
>> > YL-bis schema/module-set. Specifically we're proposing (see below for
>> > full tree below):
>> >
>> >  +--ro schema* [name]
>> >  +--ro name string
>> > ADD +--ro datastore* ds:datastore-ref {revised-datastores}
>> >
>> > This approach has the advantages of supporting different mounted
>> > schema in different DSes, working with both NMDA and non-NMDA
>> > implementations, supporting all of the extensively discussed features
>> > of schema mount (including recursive mounts), and having minor/scoped
>> > impact on all dependent work. The main downside is that it isn't the
>> > most optimal/compact solution possible if we were to base this work on
>> > YL-bis/pre09 draft. Of course -08 isn't necessarily optimal from all
>> > perspectives, but it is what was agreed to as sufficient by those who
>> > contribute to the WG discussion.
>> >
>> > In short, we see this as a solution to addresses the raised last call
>> > issue with the minimal impact on -08 and dependent work -- which is
>> > what is appropriate given where we are in the process.
>> >
>> > So our/my question really is:
>> >
>> >  Is this a solution that you/all can live with?
>> >
>> > Note: optimization, design preference and perfect alignment with use
>> > or YL-bis are not part of our question as we both don't think that is
>> > the right question given where we are in the WG process.
>> >
>> > Lou (with ideas developed with Chris, and chair hat off)
>> >
>> > ======
>> > Details -- for those who want
>> > ======
>> > As background, my understanding/view is that the -08 version of the
>> > both NMDA and non-NMDA supporting implementations, but there are
>> > limitations in its NMDA applicability. Used with Yang Library,
>> > [rfc7895], only non-NMDA implementations can be supported. When used
>> > with the revised Yang Library defined in
>> > [I.D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-], NMDA implementations can be
>> > supported with certain limitations. Specifically, this document
>> > requires use of the now deprecated module-list grouping, and the same
>> > schema represented in schema list of the Schema Mount module MUST be
>> > used in all datastores. Inline type mount points, which don't use the
>> > schema list, can support different schema in different data stores
>> > not by instantiating the [I.D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-] version of
>> > YANG library under the inline mount point.
>> >
>> >  module: ietf-yang-schema-mount
>> >  +--ro schema-mounts
>> >  +--ro namespace* [prefix]
>> >  | +--ro prefix yang:yang-identifier
>> >  | +--ro uri? inet:uri
>> >  +--ro mount-point* [module name]
>> >  | +--ro module yang:yang-identifier
>> >  | +--ro name yang:yang-identifier
>> >  | +--ro config? boolean
>> >  | +--ro (schema-ref)?
>> >  | +--:(inline)
>> >  | | +--ro inline? empty
>> >  | +--:(use-schema)
>> >  | +--ro use-schema* [name]
>> >  | +--ro name
>> >  | | -> /schema-mounts/schema/name
>> >  | +--ro parent-reference* yang:xpath1.0
>> >  +--ro schema* [name]
>> >  +--ro name string
>> > ADD +--ro datastore* ds:datastore-ref {revised-datastores}
>> >   +--ro module* [name revision]
>> >  | +--ro name yang:yang-identifier
>> >  | +--ro revision union
>> >  | +--ro schema? inet:uri
>> >  | +--ro namespace inet:uri
>> >  | +--ro feature* yang:yang-identifier
>> >  | +--ro deviation* [name revision]
>> >  | | +--ro name yang:yang-identifier
>> >  | | +--ro revision union
>> >  | +--ro conformance-type enumeration
>> >  | +--ro submodule* [name revision]
>> >  | +--ro name yang:yang-identifier
>> >  | +--ro revision union
>> >  | +--ro schema? inet:uri
>> >  +--ro mount-point* [module name]
>> >  +--ro module yang:yang-identifier
>> >  +--ro name yang:yang-identifier
>> >  +--ro config? boolean
>> >  +--ro (schema-ref)?
>> >  +--:(inline)
>> >  | +--ro inline? empty
>> >  +--:(use-schema)
>> >  +--ro use-schema* [name]
>> >  +--ro name
>> >  | -> /schema-mounts/schema/name
>> >  +--ro parent-reference* yang:xpath1.0
>> >
>> > We would expect that the revised-datastores feature would be used
>> > (perhaps required) for any implementation that supports
>> > ietf-datastores
>> > and yl-bis.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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