Re: [netmod] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-01.txt

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Thu, 06 December 2018 12:41 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 4D325131173 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 04:41:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 pU4k6T9Vhmqv for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 04:41:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F5C130EF5 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 04:41:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.61]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F4251AE0383; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 13:40:59 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 13:40:58 +0100
Message-Id: <20181206.134058.1870987445768444391.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
Cc: balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181206122523.o3o7m5qbtuceevap@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
References: <154409113299.3479.15867089668746650774.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <35a31eae-9a4f-7d20-a9d3-6b0b60ac8a34@ericsson.com> <20181206122523.o3o7m5qbtuceevap@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
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/nxlg8EKiyDijEDfSZtSVw8wergo>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-01.txt
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 06 Dec 2018 12:41:08 -0000

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 10:15:30AM +0000, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> > 
> >    Jürgen stated that it would be better to use the YANG XML/JSON encoding as
> >    a format instead of referencing the get operation/request. I might even
> >    agree with him, but for 2 reasons I did not follow his idea:
> > 
> >      * Currently there is no RFC I could reference either for XML or JSON.
> >        AFAIK even RFC7951 does not define how multiple modules should be
> >        encoded side by side.
> >      * It is not the job of the instance data draft to dictate how to encode
> >        YANG data generally e.g. on the wire.
> >      * The contents of the get operation/request are well defined
> >
> 
> The first bullet needs to be taken care of but it is not too difficult
> I think.
> 
> I fail to understand what bullet two is about or why it matters. We
> are talking about the instance file format, no more and no less.
> 
> Yes, the contents of the get operation/request are well defined but
> the definitions are not generically applicable to define instance file
> formats and the dependincy of the instance file format on protocols
> is problematic from a maintenance perspective.

I agree.

I'm not even convinced that the current text is clear and correct:

   The content-data part of the XML format SHALL follow the format
   returned for a NETCONF GET operation.  The <content-data> anydata
   node SHALL contain all elements that would be inside the <data>
   wrapper element of a reply to the <get> operation.

What exactly does "all elements that would be inside the <data>" mean?
Does it mean that if a server supports 10 modules, all 10 modules
MUST be part of all instance files?  Probably not.


Since the "content-data" is of type "anydata", I think that we don't
need much additional text.  Maybe something like:

   The "content-data" part may contain data from multiple modules, in
   any order.  For any node in "content-data", the path from the data
   model root node down to the node, including any elements
   necessary to uniquely identify the node, is included in the
   response message.



/martin