Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Thu, 11 January 2018 13:47 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 E17AB12EB2F for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:47:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 po1PWsssQ_En for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:47:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E9C12EADE for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:47:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.56]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 75B451AE00B6; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:47:06 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:47:05 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20180111.144705.493071366326080006.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: bart.bogaert@nokia.com
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180110.144453.957272588242505523.mbj@tail-f.com>
References: <20180109.163933.49682684192910889.mbj@tail-f.com> <AM4PR07MB1716D69A0AF0BBCD3BAF71D094110@AM4PR07MB1716.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <20180110.144453.957272588242505523.mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/md5JdV3VvdKbojfGlellqJr9jCw>
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06
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, 11 Jan 2018 13:47:11 -0000

Hi,

To summarize this, I think we have three options for the three nodes
'model-name', 'mfg-name', and 'serial-num':

  1.  Do nothing (keep the nodes as config true).

  2.  Make these three nodes config false (fairly simple change).
      (vendors can augment w/ their own config true nodes).

  3.  Add three new nodes for the configured values.


After thinking about this some more, and discussing with Benoit, I
think the best path forward is to do 2, i.e., mark the nodes
'model-name', 'mfg-name', and 'serial-num' as "config false".  As such
they would not be configurable, and thus contain the detected values.
If no value is detected, the node is not present.

Note that 1 or 3 can be done in a future update to this module (or by
a vendor).


/martin


Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> "Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <bart.bogaert@nokia.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > --- snip ---
> > 
> > > state.”, so the above sentence only applies for the second case below.
> > 
> > Ok.
> > 
> > > 2. The second case is that something is detected but it can’t be read.
> > > We do not see a reason to use the value configured for the leafs 
> > > ‘serial-num’, ‘mfg-name’ and ‘model-name’ of a matching entry in the 
> > > configuration data.  These leafs are defined as optional so why would 
> > > we report something entered by an operator in the operational 
> > > datastore that intends to report on what is detected?  Is it not 
> > > better to not report them at all?  In an NMDA context it would be 
> > > possible to have a different value (or no value at all) for certain 
> > > leafs while there is something in the running/intended datastore.
> > 
> > The normal NMDA procedure for a configuration leaf is to repeat it in
> > operational state.  This is then the "applied configuration".
> > I don't think we should have a special rule for these leafs.
> > 
> > This also means that a client that just wants to read all the serial
> > numbers can do so from one place, the operational state, regardless of
> > how they came into existance.
> > 
> > [Bogaert, Bart ] 
> > 
> > We do understand that a target of NMDA is to read out the actually
> > applied data in one request.  But the result should not be
> > confusion. A key word is “applied”.
> > 
> > Section 5.3 of draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-09 also contains
> > (I put a part of the section between ***):
> > The datastore schema for <operational> MUST be a superset of the
> > combined datastore schema used in all configuration datastores except
> > that configuration data nodes supported in a configuration datastore
> > ***MAY be omitted from <operational> if a server is not able to
> > accurately report them ***.
> 
> Note that this text talks about the *schema*.  It is intended for
> servers to migrate to NMDA without having to instrument all config
> nodes in <operational> immediately.  If you apply this to
> ietf-hardware, it could be a server that implements the node
> "serial-num" in config, but not in <operational> (which would be
> weird).
> 
> > For example, it is expected that the value of multiple leafs need to
> > be a consistent set, e.g. the mfg-name, the model-name, and the
> > serial-num.
> > Suppose we have a use case in which a hardware component is
> > planned/configured (e.g. a board supporting DSL interfaces) but a
> > different one is plugged (e.g. a board supporting ethernet
> > interfaces).
> > Suppose it is possible to read some fields on the detected component
> > but due to an issue not to read other fields.
> > If in that case the operational datastore will be completed with the
> > data taken from the running datastore, then the presented view might
> > be inconsistent.
> 
> This is true for other similar nodes as well - "asset-id" and "uri".
> 
> > The question is also: what data is applied? Our assumption: if there
> > is a mismatch between detected versus configured hardware, then the
> > interface/service related data that is configured consistently with
> > the planned hardware is not applied on the mismatching
> > hardware. I.e. the detected hardware is not brought in service so not
> > ‘applied’, the operational datastore only (accurately) reports on what
> > is detected.
> 
> If there is a mismatch and the server doesn't apply the configured
> values, then obviously the configured 'mfg-name' etc are not copied to
> <operational>.
> 
> > We do not see this as a special rule for this data but rather would
> > apply a general rule:
> > -	if there is a ‘missing resource’, then the data is not reported in the
> >  	operational datastore.
> > -	If the server is not able to report accurately, then the data is
> >  	omitted from the operational
> 
> I think that if you want complete separation between the values of
> 'mfg-name', 'model-name', and 'serial-num' in configuration and
> operational state, then these should be modelled as separate leafs.
> We should have a config false leaf 'serial-num' that only contains the
> detected value (if found), and a config true leaf 'config-serial-num'
> or something, that contains the configured serial number.
> 
> But if this is the case, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to leave
> such additional config objects to vendors, and simply make these three
> nodes config false in ietf-hardware.
> 
> 
> /martin
> 
> > 
> > Regards, Bart
> > 
> > /martin
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Best regards, Bart
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert 
> > > Wilton
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 4:14 PM
> > > To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>om>; netmod@ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06
> > > 
> > > Hi Martin,
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 21/12/2017 11:37, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I need WG input on this issue.  The question is how to handle 
> > > > 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name'.  I think they should all 
> > > > be treated the same.  Based on previous WG discussion (see e.g. the 
> > > > mail thread "draft-ietf-netmod-entity issue #13"), I think they 
> > > > should all be configurable, but the configured value is only used in 
> > > > operational state if the system cannot read it from the hardware.
> > > I think that this approach is probably OK:
> > >   - The client can always see the real value if it is available.
> > >   - If it is not available then they can assign a value via  
> > > configuration.
> > > 
> > > I was also considering an alternative approach of having a separate 
> > > set of config false leaves for the "burnt in values".  And then having
> > > the configurable leaves always override the default operational 
> > > values. E.g. similar to how an interface MAC address would expect to 
> > > be handled.
> > > 
> > > But one set of leaves is probably sufficient.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Rob
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > So I suggest the following changes:
> > > >
> > > > OLD:
> > > >
> > > >        leaf serial-num {
> > > >          type string;
> > > >          config false;
> > > >          description
> > > >            "The vendor-specific serial number string for the
> > > >             component.  The preferred value is the serial number
> > > >             string actually printed on the component itself (if
> > > >             present).";
> > > >          reference "RFC 6933: entPhysicalSerialNum";
> > > >        }
> > > >
> > > > NEW:
> > > >
> > > >        leaf serial-num {
> > > >          type string;
> > > >          description
> > > >            "The vendor-specific serial number string for the
> > > >             component.  The preferred value is the serial number
> > > >             string actually printed on the component itself (if
> > > >             present).
> > > >
> > > >             This leaf can be configured.  There are two use cases for
> > > >             this; as a 'post-it' note if the server cannot determine
> > > >             this value from the component, or when pre-provisioning a
> > > >             component.
> > > >
> > > >             If the server can determine the serial number from the
> > > >             component, then that value is always used in operational
> > > >             state, even if another value has been configured.";
> > > >          reference "RFC 6933: entPhysicalSerialNum";
> > > >        }
> > > >
> > > > And corresponding text for 'mfg-name' and 'model-name'.
> > > >
> > > > And also:
> > > >
> > > > OLD:
> > > >
> > > >           When the server detects a new hardware component, it
> > > >           initializes a list entry in the operational state.
> > > >
> > > >           If the server does not support configuration of hardware
> > > >           components, list entries in the operational state are
> > > >           initialized with values for all nodes as detected by the
> > > >           implementation.
> > > >
> > > >           Otherwise, the following procedure is followed:
> > > >
> > > >             1. If there is an entry in the /hardware/component list in
> > > >                the intended configuration with values for the nodes
> > > >                'class', 'parent', 'parent-rel-pos' that are equal to
> > > >                the detected values, then:
> > > >
> > > >             1a. If the configured entry has a value for 'mfg-name'
> > > >                 that is equal to the detected value, or if the
> > > >                 'mfg-name' value cannot be detected, then the list
> > > >                 entry in the operational state is initialized with the
> > > >                 configured values for all configured nodes, including
> > > >                 the 'name'.
> > > >
> > > >                 Otherwise, the list entry in the operational state is
> > > >                 initialized with values for all nodes as detected by
> > > >                 the implementation.  The implementation may raise an
> > > >                 alarm that informs about the 'mfg-name' mismatch
> > > >                 condition.  How this is done is outside the scope of
> > > >                 this document.
> > > >
> > > >             1b. Otherwise (i.e., there is no matching configuration
> > > >                 entry), the list entry in the operational state is
> > > >                 initialized with values for all nodes as detected by
> > > >                 the implementation.
> > > >
> > > >           If the /hardware/component list in the intended
> > > >           configuration is modified, then the system MUST behave as if
> > > >           it re-initializes itself, and follow the procedure in 
> > > > (1).";
> > > >
> > > > NEW:
> > > >
> > > >           When the server detects a new hardware component, it
> > > >           initializes a list entry in the operational state.
> > > >
> > > >           If the server does not support configuration of hardware
> > > >           components, list entries in the operational state are
> > > >           initialized with values for all nodes as detected by the
> > > >           implementation.
> > > >
> > > >           Otherwise, the following procedure is followed:
> > > >
> > > >             1. If there is an entry in the /hardware/component list in
> > > >                the intended configuration with values for the nodes
> > > >                'class', 'parent', 'parent-rel-pos' that are equal to
> > > >                the detected values, then the list entry in operational
> > > >                state is initialized with the configured values,
> > > >                including the 'name'.  The leafs 'serial-num',
> > > >                'mfg-name', and 'model-name' are treated specially; see
> > > >                their descriptions for details.
> > > >
> > > >             2. Otherwise (i.e., there is no matching configuration
> > > >                entry), the list entry in the operational state is
> > > >                initialized with values for all nodes as detected by
> > > >                the implementation.
> > > >
> > > >           If the /hardware/component list in the intended
> > > >           configuration is modified, then the system MUST behave as if
> > > >           it re-initializes itself, and follow the procedure in 
> > > > (1).";
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > /martin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > >> On 12/20/2017 4:00 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > >>> Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> Hi Martin,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks.
> > > >>>> Only kept the relevant excerpts.
> > > >>>>>> - Some objects are read-write in RFC6933:
> > > >>>>>>          entPhysicalSerialNum
> > > >>>>>>          entPhysicalAlias
> > > >>>>>>          entPhysicalAssetID
> > > >>>>>>          entPhysicalUris
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> For example, entPhysicalSerialNum being read-write always bothered
> > > >>>>>> me.
> > > >>>>>> serial-num is now "config false", which is a good news IMO.
> > > >>>>> Actually, this was not the intention.  In
> > > >>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-entity-03 this is configurable.  I missed this 
> > > >>>>> in the conversion to NMDA.
> > > >>>> Ah. So no good news in this case...
> > > >>>>>> In the reverse direction, entPhysicalMfgName is read-only in 
> > > >>>>>> RFC6933, while it's "config true" in draft-ietf-netmod-entity
> > > >>>>> Yes, this was added per request from the WG.  See e.g. the 
> > > >>>>> thread "draft-ietf-netmod-entity issue #13".
> > > >>>> Sure. It was mainly an observation.
> > > >>>>> However, I think that what we have now is probably not correct.  
> > > >>>>> I think that all nodes 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name'
> > > >>>>> should be config true, and the description of list 'component' 
> > > >>>>> updated to reflect that all these tree leafs are handled the same way.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I would like to know what the WG thinks about this.
> > > >>>> Talking as a contributor this time.
> > > >>>> It seems that inventory management is kind of broken when someone 
> > > >>>> can change 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name.
> > > >>> They can't really change them.  The configured values are only 
> > > >>> used (i.e. visible in the operational state) if the device cannot 
> > > >>> detect them automatically.  I.e., they work as "post-it" notes only.
> > > >> If I look at, for example, the mfg-name, description, this is not 
> > > >> what it says.
> > > >>
> > > >>     leaf mfg-name {
> > > >>             type string;
> > > >>             description
> > > >>               "The name of the manufacturer of this physical component.
> > > >>                The preferred value is the manufacturer name string
> > > >>                actually printed on the component itself (if present).
> > > >>
> > > >>                Note that comparisons between instances of the model-name,
> > > >>                firmware-rev, software-rev, and the serial-num nodes are
> > > >>                only meaningful amongst component with the same value of
> > > >>                mfg-name.
> > > >>
> > > >>                If the manufacturer name string associated with the
> > > >>                physical component is unknown to the server, then this
> > > >>                node is not instantiated.";
> > > >>             reference "RFC 6933 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6933>:
> > > >>             entPhysicalMfgName";
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards, Benoit
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> /martin
> > > >>> .
> > > >>>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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 mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod