Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 08 February 2017 21:09 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 D7162129E46 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:09:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 ixXJUTrX_8i2 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:09:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB3A129E42 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:09:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (h-148-188.a165.priv.bahnhof.se [176.10.148.188]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 888AF1AE0476; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 22:09:30 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 22:09:30 +0100
Message-Id: <20170208.220930.1491198074201700756.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: lberger@labn.net
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <c20d21e8-936f-6d10-a943-c3afded74fb1@labn.net>
References: <20170208202923.GA99261@elstar.local> <20170208.213430.967442394732720779.mbj@tail-f.com> <c20d21e8-936f-6d10-a943-c3afded74fb1@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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/nPX7qoFmpipgYjCbTvrk9SFuDBk>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Augmenting an unimplemented module
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: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 21:09:35 -0000

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/8/2017 3:34 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:22:01PM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote:
> >>> Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On February 8, 2017 10:16:14 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder
> >>>> <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> We should perhaps start a separate thread but I fail to see why tags
> >>>>> require new editing primitives.
> >>>> It was an intentional design choice/preference by one of the authors.
> >>>> Basically, Chris thought it was easier from a client perspective.  He's the
> >>>> user, so he won:-)
> >>> The tags in the library and the tags in a module are updated at the same
> >>> time and represent logically the same list of tags. Its clear this
> >>> happens with an RPC. It seems a lot less clear this would (or should)
> >>> happen if one edited only once location.
> >>>
> >> I am not convinced by the design. We have lots of other resources
> >> where we have configured and system determined values. I do not see
> >> that tags are any different.
> > I agree.  *If* you want a config true datastructure, it should be
> > modified with the normal edit operations, not special RPCs.  There are
> > several reasons for this.  For example, how would your new RPCs interact
> > with locks?  With candidate?  With startup?
> I defer to Chris on us of RPCs in general, but an interesting use case
> that is supported with RPCs is tag modification in RO modules.

Yes, but we are talking about configuration data.

> > Also I am not sure it is a good idea to add configuration meta-data
> > that really should be common across all modules into the modules
> > themselves.  Another approach is to keep a separate list with the
> > tags, indexed by modulename and revision.
> >
> This is what the library augmentation is aimed at.

Yes that is needed, but if you also want to let clients configure
tags, you need another list.


/martin