Re: [netmod] *one* week 2nd WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-07

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Thu, 21 December 2017 13:08 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
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 4BCE21276AF; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 05:08:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 XfeSh3tkOi02; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 05:08:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from trail.lhotka.name (trail.lhotka.name [77.48.224.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD90127978; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 05:07:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix, from userid 109) id CA026182040F; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:07:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (nat-2.nic.cz [217.31.205.2]) by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1FA9018203F5; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:07:37 +0100 (CET)
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, andy@yumaworks.com
Cc: netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20171219.212514.769253397796153677.mbj@tail-f.com>
References: <80a900b3-716a-b11f-3472-7cae57662ba4@labn.net> <CABCOCHSPxEG+eXx5arHhMbxNMxgdCRKoe25Rv3-qXJ0QmVRMZw@mail.gmail.com> <20171219.212514.769253397796153677.mbj@tail-f.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, andy@yumaworks.com, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:07:55 +0100
Message-ID: <87d138kz4k.fsf@nic.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/lxISvrUSsCyWanLzA5YiHoIhrpU>
Subject: Re: [netmod] *one* week 2nd WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-07
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: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 13:08:06 -0000

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

> Hi Andy,
>
> Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I have reviewed draft-07 and my previous comments about NMDA have been
>> addressed.
>> 
>> This might be the most important sentence in the draft:
>> 
>> sec. 5.3
>> 
>>    The datastore schema for <operational> MUST be a superset of the
>>    combined datastore schema used in all configuration datastores except
>>    that YANG nodes supported in a configuration datastore MAY be omitted
>>    from <operational> if a server is not able to accurately report them.
>> 
>> The MUST implies that there is no need to design a YANG library that can
>> support
>> an implementation that violates this MUST (i.e., 1 schema tree for the
>> super-set)
>> 
>> The MAY is troublesome because it completely contradicts the conformance
>> expressed
>> in each YANG module supported by the server.  Any data node without any
>> if-feature-stmts is mandatory to implement.
>
> This is required for transition purposes; a server that wants to
> implement <operational> should not have to implement all modules at
> once (as applied config).
>
>> What about config=false subtrees within a config=true subtree?
>> Can they be omitted from <operational> as well, or does the draft just
>> intend to
>> omit the operational value of config=true nodes?  Should be specific.
>
> The text says "nodes supported in a configuration datastore MAY be
> omitted from <operational>".  So it is implicit that it only applies
> to config true nodes (since config false cannot be supported in a
> config ds).  How about:
>
> OLD:
>
>     The datastore schema for <operational> MUST be a superset of the
>     combined datastore schema used in all configuration datastores except
>     that YANG nodes supported in a configuration datastore MAY be omitted
>     from <operational> if a server is not able to accurately report them.
>
> NEW:
>
>     The datastore schema for <operational> MUST be a superset of the
>     combined datastore schema used in all configuration datastores
>     except that YANG "config true" nodes supported in a configuration

If this is about schema or data nodes, I suggest to state it
explicitly:

    ... "config true" schema/data nodes ...

>     datastore MAY be omitted from <operational> if a server is not
>     able to accurately report them.
>
>
>> Perhaps this draft does not need the MAY half of the sentence at all.
>> The YANG library can specify that it is for conformance-reporting, not
>> conformance-defining.
>
> I think we should keep the MAY, since the YANG library has to be
> designed to support this case.

Shouldn't the server add corresponding deviations to the schema for
<operational> in this case?

Lada

>
>
> /martin
>
>
>
>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Andy
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
>> 
>> > All,
>> >
>> > This starts a second working group last call on
>> > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores.
>> >
>> > As this is a 2nd LC that is focused on changes since the last LC, it
>> > closes in *one* week. The working group last call ends on December 11.
>> > Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
>> >
>> > At this point, we're most interested in verifying that previous comments
>> > are addressed since the last call on the -04 rev of the draft was held.
>> >
>> > A summary of changes can be found at
>> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/DWtD12bGkBZabEygRfiwZfcnUU4
>> >
>> > A diff can be found at
>> > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url1=draft-ietf-netmod-
>> > revised-datastores-04.txt&url2=draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-07.txt
>> >
>> > Comments along the of: I have reviewed this version of the document and it
>> > addresses my previous comments would be particularly helpful.
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> > Netmod Chairs
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67