Re: [netmod] RFC 6991bis: Abridged-instance-identifier

Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk> Mon, 16 December 2019 09:54 UTC

Return-Path: <nite@hq.sk>
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 2E4A4120127 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 01:54:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hq.sk
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 EwVb66ZbtONk for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 01:54:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hq.sk (hq.sk [81.89.59.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B69A120129 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 01:54:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nitebug.nitenet.local (46.229.239.158.host.vnet.sk [46.229.239.158]) by mail.hq.sk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 78D4C243BB7; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 10:54:04 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hq.sk; s=mail; t=1576490044; bh=Xvr9iA+GWvkmn9LO1+xyRl4U73d7IIdJexfiuNLhP+A=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=m6W7lu0bAa7I13mom3xv6hx4nGb7rBEyudVP0nw8WI5zRtaGVNvD41/B2/RI9nF2H I9AyTAUELzz8ZymH7COv03wwfjXDtqosGxFYAIT+CGCKaGndzMD8ICgySIFt78c+TI g2j6hWmGmqGgENdD2vAQWBepvWGI1D8/SFlimMhc=
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Bal=c3=a1zs_Lengyel?= <balazs.lengyel=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "'netmod@ietf.org'" <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <AM0PR0702MB3665D858587900507DE2A1B8F05F0@AM0PR0702MB3665.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk>
Message-ID: <7f519626-1be2-2ace-22ab-d58110dfc65d@hq.sk>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 10:53:58 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR0702MB3665D858587900507DE2A1B8F05F0@AM0PR0702MB3665.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Qr1B5CcFbjdSlf3xJ4MVbTjpSHk5Y7Hte"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/juKClRAStkI6-9vLCefScdg5JkI>
Subject: Re: [netmod] RFC 6991bis: Abridged-instance-identifier
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, 16 Dec 2019 09:54:11 -0000

On 06/12/2019 14:47, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> The following type was proposed to me. Would it be interesting  for others?
> 
> In some cases were the length of the identifier matters this can be
> useful e.g. on a user interface or in an SNMP packet.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> typedef abridged-instance-identifier {
> 
>     type string ;
> 
>     description "An instance-identifier in which the prefix is not repeated.
> 
>       The prefix is omitted where ever the last included prefix is the 
> 
>       same as the one that would be present for the current data-node.
> 
>       The original instance-identifier syntax would be
> 
>         /ex:system/ex:user[ex:name='fred']/other:type
> 
>       The corresponding abridged-instance-identifier format is
> 
>         /ex:system/user[name='fred']/other:type";
> 
>   }   

Well, this smells a bit like a layering violation :) RFC7951 already
does something similar without requiring a definition of a new type
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7951#section-6.11).

Perhaps RFC7950bis (or rather, its XML companion if the split ever
happens) should allow for such abbreviated syntax?

Regards,
Robert