Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every node
Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Wed, 06 September 2017 09:41 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 AE68F132707 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 02:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 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] 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 V8NJXOuhArdS for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 02:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5842132386 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 02:41:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from birdie109 (unknown [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1::380]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38D80623E2 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 11:41:42 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1504690902; bh=kgFO7g4EQJPKj2aizXkDGXno5aDY979lcER79fXH7tQ=; h=From:To:Date; b=KkeiTG6zQYSy2mD1zcdDs6COCieF68TVwC5Vn94pqVcRFTTVr3S0hJ8e0MADrNiSM jWYdzF12GCbb4P6l2GxOkr8UYqv2fU5ZLei4VxX1FTIBW1brT8nGU1jZcglyurptMW byJuM5YSU7Q2eBIWVGC0tS4vEoD/6wBUhEZIC2sQ=
Message-ID: <1504690934.3468.50.camel@nic.cz>
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: netmod@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 11:42:14 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20170906.104936.1524498889327990684.mbj@tail-f.com>
References: <CABCOCHTycfsSi11Jfsrs=mFstzYg3257JtFGqgKGr-NpR8rxgQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170906.085222.355333494940576314.mbj@tail-f.com> <a6630804-c6cd-edb0-a642-9743aa9c13f0@cesnet.cz> <20170906.104936.1524498889327990684.mbj@tail-f.com>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/okRxCqvFlHSuL72ia0iCTyN4lds>
Subject: Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every node
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: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 09:41:47 -0000
Martin Bjorklund píše v St 06. 09. 2017 v 10:49 +0200: > Radek Krejčí <rkrejci@cesnet.cz> wrote: > > Dne 6.9.2017 v 08:52 Martin Bjorklund napsal(a): > > > Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I still don't know what it means to define hierarchical data and > > > > > > > say the > > > > > > > parent is deprecated but not the descendant nodes. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is odd but can happen anyway. A current augmentation of something > > > > > > that got deprecated likely stays current. I would hope that tools > > > > > > warn > > > > > > if they see this but that's it. > > > > > > > > > > This example seems to provide support for saying status should be > > > > > inherited. But, to be clear, you agree that if a parent is > > > > > deprecated, > > > > > than its decedents should be deprecated as well, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right -- the RFC says this has to be done manually. > > > > A missing status-stmt means status=current. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is rather non-intuitive, as is the idea that all descendant > > > > > > > nodes need to be manually edited (status is not inherited). > > > > > > > > > > > > Not a big deal. The benefit is that a reader like me knows clear > > > > > > that > > > > > > the definition I am look at is deprecated, no need to search > > > > > > backwards > > > > > > to find out. > > > > > > > > > > tree diagrams do this too, though I like Martin's approach of removing > > > > > the deprecated -state trees from the tree diagram altogether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It also means the objects expanded from groupings cannot ever be > > > > > > > changed (clearly a bug in YANG). > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, bug in YANG. > > > > > > > > > > Is this the same issue I raised? > > > > > > > > > > import ietf-foo { > > > > > prefix f; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > container bar { > > > > > uses f:foo; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > container baz { > > > > > status deprecated; > > > > > uses f:foo; <-- oops, descendants not deprecated! > > > > > } (not a problem if status inherited) > > > > > > As Andy explains below, this should be: > > > > > > container baz { > > > status deprecated; > > > uses f:foo { > > > status deprecated; > > > } > > > } > > > > despite I see this explanation of status in uses as useful, I don't > > see anything in RFC that would support this. > > I'm just saying that also "uses" can, and should be in this case, > marked as deprecated. But it also affect augments, and the author of the module where something is being deprecated may not have access to the augmenting module. Lada > > > > > According to my interpretation of 7.21.2, this is a MUST NOT: > > > > > > > > If a definition is "current", it MUST NOT reference a "deprecated" or > > > > "obsolete" definition within the same module. > > > > > > > > If a definition is "deprecated", it MUST NOT reference an "obsolete" > > > > definition within the same module. > > > > > > > > For example, the following is illegal: > > > > > > > > typedef my-type { > > > > status deprecated; > > > > type int32; > > > > } > > > > > > > > leaf my-leaf { > > > > status current; > > > > type my-type; // illegal, since my-type is deprecated > > > > } > > > > > > > > The term "reference" is not really defined above. > > > > It should also clearly apply to "uses" (e.g., your example) and leafref > > > > path-stmt. > > > > > > > > leaf foo { > > > > type string; > > > > status deprecated; > > > > } > > > > > > > > leaf bar { > > > > type leafref { path /foo; } > > > > } > > > > > > > > If it apples to path-stmt, then why not all XPath? > > > > > > B/c in XPath it is even ok to refer to non-existing nodes. And you > > > might have things like /baz/*. > > > > > > > Why doesn't "reference" include descendant nodes? > > > > > > > > The text in 7950 is too strict and can cause a massive ripple-effect > > > > when > > > > any status-stmt is changed. > > > > At the same time it is too vague to be useful to implementors. > > > > > > While I agree that it is not clear what it means to have a "current" > > > child to a "deprecated" node, I don't think this is a big issue. If a > > > node is deprecated, it is ok for an implementation to not implement > > > it. Obviously this means that no child nodes to that node is > > > implemented either, regardless of their status, if they are augmented > > > in, or comes from a grouping. > > > > what about the mandatory nodes inside a deprecated container? > > Formally, they are not deprecated (default status is current) so > > still mandatory, right? > > mandatory or not doesn't matter; mandatory doesn't mean "must > implement", but "must exist if the parent exists". > > > > /martin > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
- [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every node Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… heasley
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Radek Krejčí
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Radek Krejčí
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] 'status' statement needed on every n… Andy Bierman