Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01

"Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com> Mon, 17 July 2017 09:38 UTC

Return-Path: <jason.sterne@nokia.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 0E2B5129417; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 02:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nokia.onmicrosoft.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 PtgEX3kMPYNT; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 02:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-ve1eur01on0135.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.1.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A8F9127337; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 02:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nokia-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=nDhIOPEBCHVa4u1NcFgMajHdaLRvr9XHmD0IPGqttww=; b=Ycv0NHm9brv/+R+o/KfUw+MCsQoCCGbimnX6nSERkU7kVw/94yWcYWfq8tqGRQyeIseDMAHOLPu4tEzB9qTI6GSTpK53aXKLu6bbzGJ9MeUV5NAHGmhcoFkPBI++/1OEGfVz43ClPBjKxMBWzaaFprMZTHIviYo+Bl1E4tM4ylk=
Received: from HE1PR07MB0843.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.162.24.16) by HE1PR07MB0795.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.162.24.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1261.4; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 09:38:51 +0000
Received: from HE1PR07MB0843.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2037:21a7:f18e:d337]) by HE1PR07MB0843.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2037:21a7:f18e:d337%14]) with mapi id 15.01.1282.008; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 09:38:51 +0000
From: "Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <jason.sterne@nokia.com>
To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
CC: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines@ietf.org" <draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01
Thread-Index: AQHS5SZ748/pn7+13EKl5Q05fwyv16JX9RYw
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 09:38:51 +0000
Message-ID: <HE1PR07MB0843FAB6200281120AD901039BA00@HE1PR07MB0843.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BN3PR0201MB0867C18E5FF7239EE991F720F1C20@BN3PR0201MB0867.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <20170613200928.GA55527@elstar.local> <CY1PR0201MB0875F3203D6D4DFD606061FAF1C30@CY1PR0201MB0875.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <2513fdd0-a8b3-b547-8c37-c736c575c4bc@cisco.com> <0505FAA8-BB82-4BCB-B4A5-E8018260580D@gmail.com> <5525cbb1-9ac7-bf24-67e1-68bb681be6ac@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5525cbb1-9ac7-bf24-67e1-68bb681be6ac@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: cisco.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;cisco.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=nokia.com;
x-originating-ip: [135.245.20.20]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; HE1PR07MB0795; 7: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
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f007f6dd-488c-4a2d-8011-08d4ccf7a225
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(300000500095)(300135000095)(300000501095)(300135300095)(22001)(300000502095)(300135100095)(2017030254075)(48565401081)(300000503095)(300135400095)(2017052603031)(201703131423075)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(300000504095)(300135200095)(300000505095)(300135600095)(300000506095)(300135500095); SRVR:HE1PR07MB0795;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1PR07MB0795:
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(236129657087228)(95692535739014)(21534305686606)(50300203121483);
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <HE1PR07MB07952DF61467636372ED205C9BA00@HE1PR07MB0795.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(6040450)(601004)(2401047)(2017060910075)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(100000703101)(100105400095)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123564025)(20161123558100)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(20161123562025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(6072148)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:HE1PR07MB0795; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:HE1PR07MB0795;
x-forefront-prvs: 0371762FE7
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(39860400002)(39450400003)(39400400002)(39410400002)(39850400002)(39840400002)(24454002)(51914003)(13464003)(51444003)(377454003)(966005)(3660700001)(6116002)(6246003)(305945005)(2950100002)(39060400002)(38730400002)(8676002)(74316002)(7736002)(102836003)(5250100002)(2900100001)(81166006)(5660300001)(3846002)(7696004)(4326008)(76176999)(25786009)(6306002)(229853002)(8936002)(53936002)(189998001)(9686003)(50986999)(93886004)(3280700002)(99286003)(33656002)(14454004)(53546010)(2906002)(86362001)(54356999)(6436002)(66066001)(478600001)(6506006)(230783001)(54906002)(55016002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR07MB0795; H:HE1PR07MB0843.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:ovrnspm; PTR:InfoNoRecords; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nokia.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Jul 2017 09:38:51.4500 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR07MB0795
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/lFbzSEpyL0MmijDVnYzEj6lYPxA>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01
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: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 09:38:58 -0000

Hi guys,

This is something that could use further clarification in the draft.  i.e. examples and guidelines of when to create a separate "config false" leaf (vs the more typical case of just having a single "config true" leaf).   There is an example in there currently but I personally found it confusing:

    "An example would be the speed
    of an interface, where the configured value may not be the value that
    is currently used."

I wasn't sure if that example referred to the same issue as you guys are discussing below.  Perhaps as a minimum we could grab some of the details for the example below and incorporate them into the draft ?

Rgds,
Jason

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Wilton
> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 17:54
> To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
> Cc: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>; netmod@ietf.org; draft-dsdt-nmda-
> guidelines@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01
> 
> 
> 
> On 14/06/2017 16:23, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
> >> On Jun 14, 2017, at 8:10 AM, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Xufeng,
> >>
> >>
> >> On 14/06/2017 14:01, Xufeng Liu wrote:
> >>> Hi Juergen,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the confirmation.
> >>> As for the distinction between applied configuration and operational, I
> think that it has been determined to be useful in some use cases. We can
> create a separate leaf in such a case.
> >> Yes, I think that this is exactly the right approach.
> >>
> >> In the general case, a single leaf for applied configuration and the
> operational value is normally sufficient.
> >>
> >> But in some cases (e.g. where a value could be configured and/or
> negotiated via protocol) then it sometimes useful to both see the input into the
> protocol negotiation and also the resultant output value.
> >>
> >> Here, there is a choice to be made to decide whether the extra config false
> leaf represents the input value into the negotiation, or the output value.  I
> think that the decision probably depends on the protocol semantics, but all
> things being equal, there is a benefit if the configured value and actual
> operational value end up being represented by the same leaf/path (since this in
> the case in the mainline case where extra config false leaves are not required).
> > Another way to look at it is whether the input value is truly different from the
> output value. For example, if the input value is auto-negotiation, a boolean, but
> the output value is a speed of 10/100/1000/10000, a uint32, then a separate
> leaf makes sense.
> Yes, agreed.
> 
> For cases like these (e.g. Ethernet auto-negotiation) a good approach seem to
> be to model the leaf "enabling auto" as a separate leaf from the explicitly
> configured/operational value.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> Rob
> >>
> >>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> - Xufeng
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder
> >>>> [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de]
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 4:10 PM
> >>>> To: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>
> >>>> Cc: draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: Clarification Question on
> >>>> draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> the typical -state tree consists of config false nodes and hence it
> >>>> represents operational state. This is not a transitioning period
> >>>> question, this is how -state trees were designed. Note also that
> >>>> the applied configuration is part of the operational state in NMDA
> >>>> - for config true objects, there is no difference between the
> >>>> applied configuration value and the operationally used value - they are
> the same.
> >>>>
> >>>> /js
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 07:53:32PM +0000, Xufeng Liu wrote:
> >>>>> During discussing the adoption of this guidelines, a question came
> >>>>> up w.r.t. the
> >>>> semantics of the non-NMDA "-state" module during the transitioning
> period:
> >>>>> What kind of state do the leaves in the "-state" module represent?
> >>>>> The applied
> >>>> configuration or the actually used operational data?
> >>>>> Since only of the two types can be represented, what is the
> >>>>> guideline to model
> >>>> the other type?
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> - Xufeng
> >>>> --
> >>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> >>>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> >>>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> >>> .
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> netmod mailing list
> >> netmod@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > Mahesh Jethanandani
> > mjethanandani@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > .
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod