Re: [netmod] Instance-data-format - shall we define etag and last-modified annotation ?

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Tue, 23 July 2019 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 EE63F120290 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 07:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, 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 FkMReOzlVhho for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 07:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de (atlas5.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42B95120273 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 07:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A860854; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:24:16 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.198]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id gG_L9uKd5GIJ; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:24:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (verified OK)) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:24:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10A0D2012E; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:24:16 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10028) with ESMTP id 55OJpmSBsKEP; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:24:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from exchange.jacobs-university.de (sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "exchange.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (verified OK)) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 856E720129; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:24:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from anna.localdomain (10.50.218.117) by sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:24:14 +0200
Received: by anna.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 501) id C1FA73451D8; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:24:14 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:24:14 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Bal=C3=A1zs?= Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>
CC: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190723142414.4sc5o2j6dawblwrm@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: =?utf-8?Q?Bal=C3=A1zs?= Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <VI1PR0701MB2286D806027F541651B0BCE6F0C40@VI1PR0701MB2286.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <20190722201510.mom7xg2mdi2ulbby@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <VI1PR0701MB2286001A8E05E099C066BF61F0C70@VI1PR0701MB2286.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR0701MB2286001A8E05E099C066BF61F0C70@VI1PR0701MB2286.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
X-ClientProxiedBy: SXCHMB01.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.120) To sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/m49-c5c_6ATaTaWwU0ngKzHPqMQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Instance-data-format - shall we define etag and last-modified annotation ?
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: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 14:24:39 -0000

Balázs,

I am not sure these belongs to the data types collection. If these
annotations are a per datastore properties or per configuration
datastore properties (I am not sure these properties make a lot of
sense for dynamically changing data in <operational>, or these
properties only make sense for config true nodes, more discussion
needed I guess), then the logical place would be to define them would
be where the datastores are defined.

I understand the timing concern but my preference is to workout what
these annotations really are in an NMDA world and in a second step to
figure out a way to define them in a reasonable amount of time.

/js

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 02:11:23PM +0000, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> Hello Jürgen,
> Could the etag and last-modified annotations be moved to 6991bis?
> Regards Balazs
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>; 
> Sent: 2019. július 22., hétfő 16:15
> To: Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>;
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] Instance-data-format - shall we define etag and
> last-modified annotation ?
> 
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 07:23:59PM +0000, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Restconf (rfc8040) defined to useful bits of metadata about a YANG 
> > defined
> > datastore: entity-tag and the last-modified timestamp.
> > 
> > These can be very useful in instance data sets, however Restconf 
> > defines an encoding for these (as part of the http headers) that can 
> > not be used in instance-data-sets.
> 
> This may actually point out a flaw or omission of RFC 8527. RFC 8040 defines
> an entity-tag for its "unified" datastore and it says "if the RESTCONF
> server is co-located with a NETCONF server, then this entity-tag MUST be for
> the "running" datastore". So it is a bit unclear what happens with other
> NMDA datastores and I did not quickly find something in RFC 8527. (For
> example, can have a distinct etag for <startup/>?
>  
> > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-03#section-7.2
> >
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-03#
> > section-7.2>     defines metadata annotations for these two, that can be
> > used in instance data
> > 
> >   md:annotation entity-tag {
> >       type string;
> >       description "Used to encode the entity-tag .";
> >     }
> >     md:annotation last-modified {
> >       type yang:date-and-time;
> >       description "Contains the date and time when the annotated
> >         instance was last modified (or created).";
> >     }
> > 
> > In order to be able to include this data, the annotations need to be 
> > defined in some YANG module.
> > 
> > The question has been raised whether
> > 
> > 1.	these annotations should be defined in the ietf-yang-instance-data
> > module as it needs them, as that is open or
> > 2.	the annotations should be defined in another draft in a separate
> > YANG module as any other annotation
> > 
> > The first option is better because the instance-data needs these 
> > annotations, and at this point we see no other user for the 
> > annotation, and in this case the ongoing instance data draft will 
> > define it
> > 
> > The second option is better because, if later there are other users 
> > for these annotations, it might be strange to reference the 
> > ietf-yang-instance-data module. Also why provide special treatment to 
> > these
> > 2 annotations?
> > 
> > The authors support option 1 and don't have the time to start a new 
> > draft to define these annotations.
> > 
> > On IETF105 in the room there was more support for option 1. 
> > 
> > Please indicate if you have an opinion about the choice of 1 or 2
> 
> Version -03 only defines these annotations but does not do anything specific
> with these definitions. So if the annotations are defined elsewhere, the ID
> is as complete as before. If entity-tag and last-modified are actually seen
> as datastore properties, it would be nice to have them defined in the NMDA
> documents (and it seems we overlooked this when we did the NMDA work).
> 
> I think this needs a bit of discussion whether these are actually seen as
> datastore properties. But in this case, I would lean towards option 2.
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>



-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>