Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure
Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Thu, 28 July 2016 14:20 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 C184D12D186 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 07:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.287
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 mScN5TA_ig3U for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 07:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 717EB12D58E for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 07:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:f15b:885a:a384:b102] (unknown [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:f15b:885a:a384:b102]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B3A3262F36; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:20:40 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1469715640; bh=5UM7pDdwz9lqha0EDWsRA8hKDApIV83JuEltqE3it4M=; h=From:Date:To; b=vVv+DnIjSqYTjF+ik5BzSP0SbDKb2fymSHuHRQ8ZQSiRlhphUURPF58t1Ae1sDNQv S7yeLyJ+mlEqWXlrdoiyyD36emM03Ri0JZI/+mwn1SnIIhr35gA7j9HIwlgrEy7Q5u 2CrrRCExkIP/FwVJeK15ASAC31lVWNRijfkEdfc0=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <D3BF8708.72620%acee@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:20:48 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <552008CB-F216-4578-A709-AE0613C2EFB9@nic.cz>
References: <D3A935F0.6A4DC%acee@cisco.com> <eb15fd23-2c0a-50c4-1ebc-7c0e4867dfd8@cisco.com> <20160721174033.GB54646@elstar.local> <d18f5dd0-64d0-e223-88a9-faa4df4b7866@cisco.com> <DCB3EBBF-5EB1-4C8E-AA55-F59C4B5A8E4D@juniper.net> <bed9398c-0e6a-450e-d2ac-b381b6bebf87@cisco.com> <5296754B-8178-4B1B-B4A6-FE228ABB8E7F@juniper.net> <9367f4b1-7814-e175-32e8-d518438b841d@cisco.com> <m24m79c1ja.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz> <D3BF8708.72620%acee@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/nEmXpRe4IR2yDAqoV4YsmpgXg34>
Cc: netmod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 28 Jul 2016 14:20:45 -0000
> On 28 Jul 2016, at 15:57, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hi Lada, > > On 7/28/16, 9:52 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" > <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of lhotka@nic.cz> wrote: > >> Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> writes: >> >>> On 26/07/2016 21:36, Kent Watsen wrote: >>>> >>>> <Rob Wilton writes> >>>> >>>> >>>> So my thinking is that if we can't merge "foo-state" into "foo" then >>>> instead we should have consistent rules that explicitly state that for >>>> all IETF models "foo" and "foo-state" are separate trees with a >>>> consistent naming convention and structure. That should hopefully >>>> allow tooling to programmatically relate the two separate trees >>>> together. It may give a path to allow "foo-state" to be merged into >>>> "foo" in future, but once IETF has standardized 600+ models with >>>> separate sub-trees, I cannot see that they would get merged back >>>> together again. >>>> >>>> What other alternatives are available? As a WG we need to tell the >>>> other WGs how the IETF YANG models should be structured. >>>> >>>> In short, unfortunately I think that we have probably already missed >>>> the opportunity to merge "foo" and "foo-state" subtrees together ... >>>> >>>> </Rob Wilton> >>>> >>>> Firstly, I’m trying to get a sense of how big a problem this >>>> foo/foo-state thing is. [Note: by foo-state, I’m only referring to >>>> counters, not opstate]. >>>> >>> RW: >>> By counters, I think that we also mean any config false nodes that >>> don't >>> directly represent "applied configuration", right? E.g. is an >>> interface >>> operationally up or down. >>> >>>> I know about RFC 7223, which was done out of consideration for >>>> system-generated interfaces, but how many other such models are there >>>> envisioned to be? >>>> >>> RW: >>> - Any models that augment RFC 7223 and have config false nodes will be >>> impacted. >>> - I thought that quite a lot of other IETF models that are in the >>> process of being standardized have a top level split between "foo" and >>> "foo-state". E.g the ISIS model (draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-08) has >>> this split. I suspect that all the routing models will be structured >>> similarly. >> >> Correct. One reason is that the core routing model envisions >> system-controlled RIBs. >> >>> - Although it is perhaps worth pointing out that I think that the >>> OpenConfig modules effectively have exactly this same issue (e.g. they >>> have a combined interfaces tree keyed by config true leaves), and they >>> pragmatically just ignore the issue of system created interface >>> entries. >> >> The NETMOD WG considered this issue quite important in the past. >> >> My impression from the OpState discussion is that we are on the quest of >> the philosopher's stone, trying to find a shortcut where none is >> possible in general. The long session in Berlin concentrated on the >> life-cycle of a single parameter that's somehow configured, then >> manipulated, and eventually ends up as operational state. IMO this >> is too simplistic, the relationship between configuration and state can >> be much more complex. RIB is one example - it combines contributions >> from configuration (static routes) and derived state (routing >> protocols). > > If one were to support the Applied-Config data store, it be comprised of > only the current state of the configured static routes. The complete RIB > would still need to be accessible in separate data nodes. Yes, but I didn't talk about intended-applied. I understand that another goal of OpState is to unify config and (true) state and get rid of the foo and foo-state dichotomy in the data model. I am sceptical about it. Lada > > Thanks, > Acee > > > >> >> After all, most real devices have some configuration mode and "show" >> commands. They are separate even though there is certainly some >> relationship between their data. >> >> Lada >> >>> >>>> Is this issue currently blocking models from progressing, or are we >>>> getting ourselves wrapped around a hypothetical? >>>> >>> RW: >>> I think that it is blocking models from progressing. >>> >>> The current guidance for "intended vs applied" is clear. I.e. there >>> must not be "config false" leaves in the IETF YANG data models to >>> represent "applied config". >>> >>> But there is no clear guidance for the rest of operational state that >>> isn't applied config. The other WGs need clear guidance (effectively >>> now) to ensure that they can start publishing models as RFCs. >>> >>> >>>> If RFC 7223 is an outlier, then we can address it as a special case >>>> (perhaps via the related-state/related-config YANG annotations). What >>>> do you think? >>>> >>> RW: >>> Personally, I would like one common convention that applies to all IETF >>> YANG models. >>> >>> Idealistically I would like foo and foo-state to be merged because I >>> think that will make the models easier to use and maintain in the long >>> term, but I don't know if we are just too late to go in that direction. >>> >>> It seems to me that the NETMOD WG really should try to come to a >>> decision quite quickly on this, but I don't know how to encourage that. >>> >>> A virtual interim on just this topic perhaps? >>> >>>> Next, regarding paths forward (assuming 7223 is not an outlier), I’m >>>> thinking the opposite. I’m quite sure that we would never merge the >>>> 600+ models with separate subtrees back together again. So I’m >>>> thinking we immediately merge foo and foo-state in all active YANG >>>> models (so that the YANG “conceptual” models are stable and good) >>>> *and* then we use your idea to programmatically generate the >>>> “foo-state” tree, presumably only when needed. This foo-state tree >>>> could be generated offline by tools and provided as a second YANG >>>> module in drafts. In this way, servers (opstate aware or not) can >>>> advertise if clients can access the foo-state tree (an opstate-aware >>>> server may still advertise it for business reasons, and it can >>>> ‘deprecate’ the tree when no longer needed). We could do the same >>>> without tools today by just using a feature statement on, for >>>> instance, the interfaces-state container, but I like pushing for >>>> tooling upfront so that we’re guaranteed mergeability later. Thoughts? >>>> >>> RW: >>> So the generated "foo-state" tree would contain a copy of all config >>> false nodes in the YANG schema and a "config false copy" of any config >>> true nodes in the YANG schema that are required to provide parental >>> structure for the descendant config false nodes. >>> - The Xpath expressions would also need to be adjusted, and possibly >>> some of those might break (or need to be fixed by hand). >>> - Groupings might be a problem, but potentially they could be expanded. >>> >>> Technically this solution might work, but is it possible to get >>> everyone >>> to agree that this is the right direction to go in before we spend time >>> on this? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Rob >>> >>> >>>> Kent // as a contributor >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> netmod mailing list >>> netmod@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >> >> -- >> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs >> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> netmod@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
- [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Rob Shakir
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Alex Campbell
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Balazs Lengyel
- [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount Balazs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Balazs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- [netmod] Corollary to [OpsState Direction Impact … Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… thomas nadeau
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Alex Campbell
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Rob Shakir
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recomme… Andy Bierman