Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount
Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Fri, 23 February 2018 12:55 UTC
Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 B1E061270AE for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 04:55:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 kp40i2QSA8sC for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 04:55:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D64124239 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 04:55:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (h-80-27.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [212.85.80.27]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5FF61AE02BE; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:55:09 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:55:09 +0100
Message-Id: <20180223.135509.1022283362077802966.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: lberger@labn.net
Cc: rwilton@cisco.com, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <61afc424-4131-2871-b752-59c086dd4727@labn.net>
References: <195c3186-25ce-3019-1eda-34096fbc8de3@cisco.com> <20180223.103628.1174590223555999274.mbj@tail-f.com> <61afc424-4131-2871-b752-59c086dd4727@labn.net>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/mbOlJpitiUMG9UI0Gx-hF30aYHE>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount
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: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:55:14 -0000
Hi, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote: > Martin/Rob, > > Back when the topic was raised for the first time publicly > (Yokahama) and discussed in the WG [1] *any* solution would have been > workable. At this point > 2 years later, do you really think it is > reasonable to do a rewrite of the solution ? I don't agree that this is a rewrite of the solution. I want to keep the mountpoint statement. I want to keep the two mechanisms inline and use-schema. The only change we're talking about is alinging the read-only data that the server makes available with YLbis. This is quite trivial. We have documented this in the pre09 branch, and this is imo ready to be published. > Are you really not > willing to live with a compromise that addresses the issue albeit in > way that you/some view as suboptimal? > > Keep in mind that we had lots of discussions on what is > optimal/preferred and there are/were different view points on this, > compromises were made that increased complexity for others and these > were accepted in interest of progressing *any* deployable solution. Yes. I don't want to give up these compromises. I know that others want to, and/or explore other solutions. That's *not* what I'm proposing. /martin > > Lou > > [1] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2016-netmod-01/session/netmod > > On 2/23/2018 4:36 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Hi Lou, > >> > >> I think that this solution is inferior to the model presented in > >> pre-09. > > I agree. Servers that are NMDA-compliant, or implements YANG Library > > bis will have to present schemas in two different structures, > > depending on where the schema is used, and clients will have to code > > for both. With the solution in pre-09, there is just one structure. > > A single structure also has other benefits (apart from being simpler), > > e.g., if we augment it with the meta data that has been discussed > > recently, we can augment a single structure. > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > >> I would prefer that we publish pre09 instead, potentially including > >> the -08 model in the appendix if that helps progress the document in a > >> more expedient fashion. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Rob > >> > >> > >> On 22/02/2018 16:18, Lou Berger wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> (I have a bunch of different roles WRT this work. This mail is being > >>> sent as an individual - as chair, I fully support the previous chair > >>> statements on this draft.) > >>> > >>> Chris and I have come up with a proposal on how to provide full NMDA > >>> as part the existing schema-mount module. Our motivation was to > >>> enable full NMDA support with *minimal* change to the model and > >>> disruption to the LC'ed work. The key NMDA limitation, with -08, that > >>> we are aiming to address is the ability to support different mounted > >>> schema in different datastores for non-inline mount points. (See more > >>> detailed description below if interested full nuances of limitations > >>> of -08) > >>> > >>> What we came up with was to simply add a (leaf)list to identify in > >>> which datastores a > >>> schema-mount schema is valid/present. This is somewhat similar to > >>> YL-bis schema/module-set. Specifically we're proposing (see below for > >>> full tree below): > >>> > >>> +--ro schema* [name] > >>> +--ro name string > >>> ADD +--ro datastore* ds:datastore-ref {revised-datastores} > >>> > >>> This approach has the advantages of supporting different mounted > >>> schema in different DSes, working with both NMDA and non-NMDA > >>> implementations, supporting all of the extensively discussed features > >>> of schema mount (including recursive mounts), and having minor/scoped > >>> impact on all dependent work. The main downside is that it isn't the > >>> most optimal/compact solution possible if we were to base this work on > >>> YL-bis/pre09 draft. Of course -08 isn't necessarily optimal from all > >>> perspectives, but it is what was agreed to as sufficient by those who > >>> contribute to the WG discussion. > >>> > >>> In short, we see this as a solution to addresses the raised last call > >>> issue with the minimal impact on -08 and dependent work -- which is > >>> what is appropriate given where we are in the process. > >>> > >>> So our/my question really is: > >>> > >>> Is this a solution that you/all can live with? > >>> > >>> Note: optimization, design preference and perfect alignment with use > >>> or YL-bis are not part of our question as we both don't think that is > >>> the right question given where we are in the WG process. > >>> > >>> Lou (with ideas developed with Chris, and chair hat off) > >>> > >>> ====== > >>> Details -- for those who want > >>> ====== > >>> As background, my understanding/view is that the -08 version of the > >>> both NMDA and non-NMDA supporting implementations, but there are > >>> limitations in its NMDA applicability. Used with Yang Library, > >>> [rfc7895], only non-NMDA implementations can be supported. When used > >>> with the revised Yang Library defined in > >>> [I.D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-], NMDA implementations can be > >>> supported with certain limitations. Specifically, this document > >>> requires use of the now deprecated module-list grouping, and the same > >>> schema represented in schema list of the Schema Mount module MUST be > >>> used in all datastores. Inline type mount points, which don't use the > >>> schema list, can support different schema in different data stores > >>> not by instantiating the [I.D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-] version of > >>> YANG library under the inline mount point. > >>> > >>> module: ietf-yang-schema-mount > >>> +--ro schema-mounts > >>> +--ro namespace* [prefix] > >>> | +--ro prefix yang:yang-identifier > >>> | +--ro uri? inet:uri > >>> +--ro mount-point* [module name] > >>> | +--ro module yang:yang-identifier > >>> | +--ro name yang:yang-identifier > >>> | +--ro config? boolean > >>> | +--ro (schema-ref)? > >>> | +--:(inline) > >>> | | +--ro inline? empty > >>> | +--:(use-schema) > >>> | +--ro use-schema* [name] > >>> | +--ro name > >>> | | -> /schema-mounts/schema/name > >>> | +--ro parent-reference* yang:xpath1.0 > >>> +--ro schema* [name] > >>> +--ro name string > >>> ADD +--ro datastore* ds:datastore-ref {revised-datastores} > >>> +--ro module* [name revision] > >>> | +--ro name yang:yang-identifier > >>> | +--ro revision union > >>> | +--ro schema? inet:uri > >>> | +--ro namespace inet:uri > >>> | +--ro feature* yang:yang-identifier > >>> | +--ro deviation* [name revision] > >>> | | +--ro name yang:yang-identifier > >>> | | +--ro revision union > >>> | +--ro conformance-type enumeration > >>> | +--ro submodule* [name revision] > >>> | +--ro name yang:yang-identifier > >>> | +--ro revision union > >>> | +--ro schema? inet:uri > >>> +--ro mount-point* [module name] > >>> +--ro module yang:yang-identifier > >>> +--ro name yang:yang-identifier > >>> +--ro config? boolean > >>> +--ro (schema-ref)? > >>> +--:(inline) > >>> | +--ro inline? empty > >>> +--:(use-schema) > >>> +--ro use-schema* [name] > >>> +--ro name > >>> | -> /schema-mounts/schema/name > >>> +--ro parent-reference* yang:xpath1.0 > >>> > >>> We would expect that the revised-datastores feature would be used > >>> (perhaps required) for any implementation that supports > >>> ietf-datastores > >>> and yl-bis. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 >
- [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA suppor… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Christian Hopps
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Christian Hopps
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Christian Hopps
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Christian Hopps
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Christian Hopps
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Christian Hopps
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA su… Ladislav Lhotka