Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-09.txt

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:31 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: 03 October 2019 16:16
> > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-09.txt
> >
> > [resending to include list cc]
> >
> > > On Oct 3, 2019, at 5:45 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Chris,
> > >
> > > As discussed offline, you have left out the "masked-tag" container in
> > the "modules-tags-state" module.
> >
> > One might read this as an objection that was discussed offline, but I
> > don't think you are objecting, you're just stating what happened,
> correct?
>
> Correct, not objecting, although I might be about to 😉
>
> Generally, I think that is what is available in "module-tags-state" should
> be directly equivalent to what is available in the operational datastore
> for servers that support NMDA.
>
> So, my previous comments were trying to align these two together.  I.e. if
> you think that "masked-tag" isn't needed in "module-tags-state" then I
> think that there is the equivalent question of whether it should be
> reported in <operational>.
>
> What is unusual in this case, is that you have some configuration that
> removes items from another list.
>
>
> >
> > > For consistently, I wonder, whether there shouldn't also be a comment
> in
> > the "masked-tag" leaf-list in the main NMDA compatible module to indicate
> > that "masked-tag" isn't reported in the operational state datastore
> > because the information is combined into the "tag" leaf-list.
> >
> > Ok, color me confused. For NMDA, why wouldn't masked-tag show up in
> > operational datastore?
>
> By default it would.
>
>

IMO the non-NMDA state module should have the same structure as the NMDA
version.
Any configured masked-tag entries that are applied will appear in
<operational> and also
the non-NMDA version.

Please don't start making all kinds of special cases in NMDA.
If a configured value has an applied value, it is expected in both
<operational>
and the non-NMDA module for the <operational> contents.


Andy



>
> > Isn't the operational datastore the union of the
> > applied intended config (config true nodes) plus the config false nodes?
>
> Sort of yes.
>
> What is in <operational> is the "actual operational state in effect in the
> system".  For configurable items, this is often, but not necessarily, the
> same as "applied intended config".
>
>
> >
> > Non-NMDA has no concept of "applied" (operational state of config true
> > nodes), that is why masked-tags don't go in the module-tags-state
> > container. The user can still read the configured masked-tag value on the
> > normal non-deprecated module in the non-NMDA case.
>
> On balance, I'm not sure this was the right choice.  I think that it might
> be easier to include "masked-tags" in module-tags-state, and have it just
> report the list of tags that have been masked.  I.e. exactly the same
> meaning as NMDA.
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris.
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Rob
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: netmod <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> > >> Sent: 25 September 2019 17:19
> > >> To: [e-mail]
> > >> Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action:
> > >> draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-09.txt
> > >>
> > >> This adds the deprecated non-NMDA state module.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Chris.
> > >>
> > >>> On Sep 25, 2019, at 12:15 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> > >> directories.
> > >>> This draft is a work item of the Network Modeling WG of the IETF.
> > >>>
> > >>>       Title           : YANG Module Tags
> > >>>       Authors         : Christian Hopps
> > >>>                         Lou Berger
> > >>>                         Dean Bogdanovic
> > >>>   Filename        : draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-09.txt
> > >>>   Pages           : 18
> > >>>   Date            : 2019-09-25
> > >>>
> > >>> Abstract:
> > >>>  This document provides for the association of tags with YANG
> modules.
> > >>>  The expectation is for such tags to be used to help classify and
> > >>> organize modules.  A method for defining, reading and writing a
> > >>> modules tags is provided.  Tags may be registered and assigned
> > >>> during  module definition; assigned by implementations; or
> > >>> dynamically  defined and set by users.  This document also provides
> > >>> guidance to  future model writers; as such, this document updates
> > RFC8407.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags/
> > >>>
> > >>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> > >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-09
> > >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-
> > >>> 09
> > >>>
> > >>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-09
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> > >>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> > >> tools.ietf.org.
> > >>>
> > >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> netmod mailing list
> > >>> [e-mail]
> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > >>>
> > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>