Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-06

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 11 March 2020 17:59 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.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 D3F253A0FDB for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 10:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 JGeTq86W3RNw for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 10:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5393D3A0FD7 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 10:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=14024; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1583949540; x=1585159140; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=VS+SH86NYDroXc0aa1qkWeYnjac3hlRoU70WDmVtyS4=; b=Mz2Gilpfw3WslBqVjSrbLaETomofqeingyYGU1vBCIhugIsCyy7WFXwH s6PmiFh1DO1P46E8+Irm5doym+A+QPYucpwSySvAoG0QBkiPVbOHfmA3w MMx4XfvwS7HMXGalKVYbhQvlV40aOMNjvjLvDB6nUTegxRo4TnKI0WvD0 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AIAQADJmle/xbLJq1mGwEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?FAQEBEQEBAwMBAQGBe4NpASASKoQViQKIEpMzhiSBZwkBAQEMAQEvBAEBhEM?= =?us-ascii?q?CgjE4EwIDAQELAQEFAQEBAgEFBG2FYoVjAQEBAQMjYgQLEAEEAQEBKgICTwg?= =?us-ascii?q?GAQwGAgEBgyKCfKoydYEyhUqDSoE+gTiMRoFBP4ERJ4JtPoQWARIBB4Mrgjw?= =?us-ascii?q?iBLAugkaWZQYdjxWMJY58kV2JdwIECwIVgWkiZ3EzGggbFYMnUBgNnGZAAzC?= =?us-ascii?q?OXgEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.70,541,1574121600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="24298435"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 11 Mar 2020 17:58:58 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.38] (ams-bclaise-nitro5.cisco.com [10.55.221.38]) (authenticated bits=0) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 02BHwvn8012102 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 17:58:58 GMT
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Bal=c3=a1zs_Lengyel?= <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
References: =?utf-8?q?=3C0100016f8006222d-b861a109-93ee-4a77-8b65-54c22d591e?= =?utf-8?q?25-000000=40email=2Eamazonses=2Ecom=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3C20200120144528=2Ewt2z4y66xcnp7fxj=40anna=2Ejacobs=2Ejacobs-uni?= =?utf-8?q?versity=2Ede=3E_=3CDB7PR07MB4011635119B75D384D11D01DF0180=40DB7PR?= =?utf-8?q?07MB4011=2Eeurprd07=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3C20200212090703=2Eeikj365ctbsighey=40anna=2Ejacobs=2Ejacobs-uni?= =?utf-8?q?versity=2Ede=3E_=3CDB7PR07MB4011A7798CBC8E40F49F8B88F01A0=40DB7PR?= =?utf-8?q?07MB4011=2Eeurprd07=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3C20200219101653=2E7e46vtzxuyaixr73=40anna=2Ejacobs=2Ejacobs-uni?= =?utf-8?q?versity=2Ede=3E_=3CDB7PR07MB40117B60C972838C9A08C053F0E30=40DB7PR?= =?utf-8?q?07MB4011=2Eeurprd07=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= =?utf-8?q?=3C20200309094352=2Ec7w2cbpztf54ncy2=40anna=2Ejacobs=2Ejacobs-uni?= =?utf-8?q?versity=2Ede=3E_=3CDB7PR07MB4011CAEF007AFC2E89366CAEF0FE0=40DB7PR?= =?utf-8?q?07MB4011=2Eeurprd07=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?= <20200309163548.zq4nq6xe44zkest6@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <bab729da-999d-da90-ff64-d037e2a29f68@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 18:58:53 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200309163548.zq4nq6xe44zkest6@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------4112D42C4A7E186BD605BE19"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Authenticated-User: bclaise
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.55.221.38, ams-bclaise-nitro5.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/lp-ULwmLV98lwpY6DULviQj9YL4>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-06
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: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 17:59:03 -0000

Juergen,

On on side, Balazs mentions:

4+ people asked me explicitly to state this similarity during the
development of the draft.

The current text is:

        P2  Instance data shall reuse existing encoding rules for YANG
            defined data.  Its format will be similar to the response of a
            NETCONF <get> operation or the RESTCONF response to a GET method
            invocation on the (unified) datastore resource.

This modification is based on your feedback:

Well, then the correct wording would be "similar to the response of a
NETCONF <get> operation or the RESTCONF response to a GET method
invocation on the (unified) datastore resource". Sounds complex and I
still prefer the text to be agnostic to specific operations

On the other side, you insist now on removing the latter sentence.
Could you propose a similar sentence that would satisfy your concern?

Regards, Benoit
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 04:17:40PM +0000, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
>> See BALAZS4 below
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
>> Sent: 2020. március 9., hétfő 10:44
>> To: Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>
>> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call:
>> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-06
>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Schönwälder, Jürgen <J.Schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
>>>> Sent: 2020. február 12., szerda 10:07
>>>> Subject: [Not Scanned] - Re: [netmod] WG Last Call:
>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-06
>>>>
>>>>>    - Is it necessary to describe P2 in terms of (presumably) NETCONF
>>>>>      operations? I would prefer to have the document written in a
>>>>>      protocol agnostic style. Perhaps simply drop "similar to the
>>>>>      response of a <get> operation/request".
>>>>> BALAZS: This is a reference both to NETCONF and RESTCONF. It was
>>>>> explicitly asked for by other reviewers.
>>>> Well, then the correct wording would be "similar to the response of
>>>> a NETCONF <get> operation or the RESTCONF response to a GET method
>>>> invocation on the (unified) datastore resource". Sounds complex and
>>>> I still prefer the text to be agnostic to specific operations - in
>>>> particular since <get> and the unified datastore have their
>>>> limitations. The format is simply reusing the already defined data
>>>> model encoding formats, i.e., the format has nothing to do with the
>>> operations used to retrieve the data. So I suggest:
>>>>     P2  Instance data shall reuse existing encoding rules for
>>>>         YANG defined data.
>>>>
>>>> There is no need to refer to specific protocol operations.
>>>> BALAZS: I will use both of your texts. That is the most common
>>>> question I
>>>> get: Will this use the same format as a get-reply? People like to
>>>> think in terms of a specific easy-to-grasp function instead of a
>>>> non-descript set of "existing" rules. Existing means you need to
>>>> understand X number of RFCs, while just looking up a get-reply is
>>>> easy. It is not precise, but IMHO that's how people think.
>>> If you write "reuse existing encoding rules", then actually fewer
>>> documents need to be understood. And operations have additional issues
>>> in how they interact with 'datastores', so they may even be misleading
>>> and I rather have the standards precise (and minimal normative
>> dependencies).
>>> BALAZS3: Sorry, I don't fully understand your point. What would you
>>> like in P2?
>>> The text now is:
>>> P2  Instance data shall reuse existing encoding rules for YANG
>>>         defined data.  Its format will be similar to the response of a
>>>         NETCONF <get> operation or the RESTCONF response to a GET method
>>>         invocation on the (unified) datastore resource.
>>> It refers to existing rules as you asked for and also  says" similar"
>>> to a get response, using phrasing from your email on 2020-02-12.
>>> Are you OK with this? Or how would you like to change it?
>> What I proposed above:
>>
>>     P2  Instance data shall reuse existing encoding rules for
>>         YANG defined data.
>>
>> Your additional sentence is simply wrong. Instance data from lets say
>> <operational> with _not_ be 'similar' to the response of a NETCONF <get>
>> operation or the RESTCONF response to a GET method invocation on the
>> (unified) datastore resource. The same holds true for instance data from
>> <running>.
>> BALAZS4:  I would like to keep the second part of the sentence.
>> 4+ people asked me explicitly to state this similarity during the
>> development of the draft. While your methodical and somewhat abstract way of
>> thinking has greatly helped me/us in many cases, IMHO other people often
>> think in the terms of examples and  in recognizing known similar
>> methodology. As the we use the same encoding rules for get replies and for
>> instance data, IMHO they are similar even if instance data allows some
>> additions/omissions. (People liked/requested this statement, even though
>> "similar" is a rather subjective term.)
>> Anyway it is only included in the introduction part, so while it helps some
>> people, it should not cause problems with the precise definition of the
>> format. On your request I already removed a similar statement from the
>> normative parts.
> What the sentence says is unclear or plain wrong in a number of valid
> use cases (depends on how one understands the word "similar") and thus
> this sentence is misleading and asking for trouble down the road. I
> fully understand the value of examples but here we define what is
> called a 'basic principle' - and a basic principle that is not quite
> correct for all use cases sounds like a bad idea to me.
>
> If you want to write an example after the principles that is
> identifiable as an example, I am fine with that. As the sentence is
> worded right now as part of a 'basic principle', I am having an issue
> with the it.
>
> /js
>