Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-05

Kent Watsen <> Thu, 07 December 2017 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 318DD1294CE for <>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:03:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sn_XcViaNOdg for <>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:03:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08BBF1293EE for <>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:03:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id vB7JxCII027454; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 12:03:00 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=zqs/0x9L4DkkxVyJCJzJ0Faf+QoIxX+aDi8N/rRCVEA=; b=OjbRMAib2TDmB+e3KOICWsIpUkl/yM32vIwDaOJrF8vEElSyGOdqoah8AZbZBdRoPbvC HCYhkzUiiVe8BaNUYYKQi8OkoNrudGNh7GEI69mH8C2zbxFc27W7Ar0tN5UsaDPZh6Ey nbsf0hSXblV2bJxwe9LCG+oFtmfEWLe9Kckechq3GggFJIGhVlmXfBrMBAl1GoUi3w/L wE+/dM88QpnrUfy7/LdMkd9P6P1LJA5oDX4hzkAQBjeQwxMj/7wzRgPXyvQq6rv0vw8n lw65RSBMAdQeLZRygW+OkjLtCSzsszwB/xxhHXvJJtb7zRL2DHxFYPMerSa9IGMc24SD Fg==
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 2eqb7gr686-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 07 Dec 2017 12:02:59 -0800
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.302.2; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 20:02:57 +0000
Received: from ([fe80::38c7:9ea8:b320:1eb]) by ([fe80::38c7:9ea8:b320:1eb%14]) with mapi id 15.20.0302.010; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 20:02:57 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <>, "Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <>
CC: NetMod WG <>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-05
Thread-Index: AQHTaTiKb8BGrVZUXkOliaJmI9zIUKM02iaAgAACtICAAymjgA==
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 20:02:57 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <20171205144509.q2fktqg3u7knk2yv@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20171205144509.q2fktqg3u7knk2yv@elstar.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN1PR05MB279; 6:llLplvrk5G5hav3qiLQxX1lphj5ebuKQgQ26GkcdQvSFflSXObwJYTBCg34KiqwZQv+NzinJLMbejXZxoUnMpTRQjlZlaB3XpgJn7o0H+K1RaHIahnoIArT6IbJ2jkuWOlkcugg11cx2cfB8sgfoUixOCiDDyBbD6DI5kFPljiNu+qVrzuzf7/PV6PeVUa7Ow72TE/BYQljawoIlPnz1xpexYsK2TppTB/eZlDLNITDDAkVtDAzU5cRwqfwWvmdOSdz44Zu6NfzAU3lHDFuuJL16sQZEheAjm2iST6gHovqOLPOOIPmyTOYXv2jYovxK/PEm+N2k8oQ0a5L7gns4s7uBy0Ei5QvXy6HtNCPxfSE=; 5:78m6euTYfeJuwUO8Atptl4wQUM4xss0KGfZAwRttKfM1nG/NSqSzyQy/D2eJ1g71S3mDZWuLc4QSPGNIuICx54+j7xlheH7GWuTVtaY4aNnt1L1ihu2tSWTG3LPQI8+2yG1lnp6W4WsX/LsY7S2c1NdriPloldJyNYu4GDJBDtw=; 24:JoRj+rT0TV0PIRO60iIbhcSUFN3b/iva6bAtH2Og0tkodp2TRZ1P5dNjS4hpiTWbdZPNJuh8JKRw7qEmLjGQyx8OgkIoRad4Zact8aGUh28=; 7:7fMc1bi7Pum5C2Ti0Yb6R2Eb3urvCoA5SREaNpT4hCNgXYKWFgtxAfuSLYRmJUPlxTWwE9N79gCA680lI04TRmiU5kUZmat/ebdZhlQ7lhZOasECdYGZVifJNSbAQ2th2BplO7p8tgfeQDlMK2OhedgoZeFh8AzWOY0Lnq12UCDRHpeZQptwRVhUdt+pfVxO3KLngQx97oA1D2ljNCHCWMaFiD4M/28JFY0LvR9HBYh67DeyP7A6mKBNh4/Pk5Vv
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 98bae02a-df01-47fb-b127-08d53dad8309
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(4534020)(4602075)(4627115)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(48565401081)(5600026)(4604075)(2017052603286); SRVR:BN1PR05MB279;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN1PR05MB279:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(10436049006162);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3231022)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560025)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(20161123558100)(20161123564025)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:BN1PR05MB279; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000803101)(100110400095); SRVR:BN1PR05MB279;
x-forefront-prvs: 05143A8241
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(39860400002)(366004)(346002)(13464003)(24454002)(199004)(189003)(106356001)(33656002)(230783001)(478600001)(105586002)(229853002)(101416001)(6486002)(966005)(8936002)(14454004)(6506006)(66066001)(110136005)(86362001)(575784001)(53546010)(81156014)(58126008)(316002)(4326008)(8676002)(81166006)(2906002)(97736004)(6436002)(6306002)(2900100001)(6246003)(53936002)(7736002)(68736007)(83716003)(36756003)(3846002)(305945005)(102836003)(3280700002)(6116002)(76176011)(82746002)(5660300001)(3660700001)(25786009)(99286004)(5250100002)(2950100002)(83506002)(8656006)(6512007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR05MB279;; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 98bae02a-df01-47fb-b127-08d53dad8309
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 Dec 2017 20:02:57.8942 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN1PR05MB279
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-12-07_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1712070293
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 20:03:04 -0000


Picking up on Juergen's comment:

> If these deprecated objects are essential for BBF (please confirm),
> then it might be better to define them in a separate module...

I agree that the objects should be defined in a separate module.  The
request, as I understand it, is for there be an "ietf-hardware-state"
module defined in the Appendix of this draft.  I believe that doing
so is consistent with the NMDA guidelines:

   (b) Models that require immediate support for "in use" and "system
   created" information SHOULD be structured for NMDA.  A non-NMDA
   version of these models SHOULD exist, either an existing model or a
   model created either by hand or with suitable tools that mirror the
   current modeling strategies.  Both the NMDA and the non-NMDA modules
   SHOULD be published in the same document, with NMDA modules in the
   document main body and the non-NMDA modules in a non-normative
   appendix.  The use of the non-NMDA model will allow temporary
   bridging of the time period until NMDA implementations are available.

Of course, we should ask, for how long is it that the IETF (SDOs in 
general) should publish these -state modules?   During the discussion
at the beginning of the first session in Singapore, I said something
along the lines of "so long as there is market demand for it", which
seems a bit too open-ended for my taste.   I recommend that we set a 
date, perhaps a couple years out, after which we (the IETF) will no 
longer publish or maintain such foo-state modules.


Kent  // as co-chair

===== original message ======


I think the reason for the difference is that the interfaces model was
published as an RFC before while the hardware model is new and hence
it seems to look a bit odd to define new deprecated objects.

If these deprecated objects are essential for BBF (please confirm),
then it might be better to define them in a separate module that then
can silently die while systems move to NMDA (and so we do not have the
deprecated objects with us in the hardware module forever - or at
least as long as we use YANG 1.1).


On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 02:35:29PM +0000, Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote:
> Hello,
> The latest draft does not contain an appendix with the deprecated state tree
> (to support the non-NMDA model as specified in RFC6087bis section 4.23.3),
> so if it is published in this way, there is an issue at the level of BBF
> TR-383.
> Note that the draft-ietfnetmod-rfc7223bis does include the deprecated
> container interfaces-state.
> Best regards,
> Bart Bogaert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netmod [] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 6:36 PM
> To: NetMod WG <>
> Cc: NetMod WG Chairs <>
> Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-05
> All,
> This starts a two-week working group last call on
> draft-ietf-netmod-entity-05.
> The working group last call ends on December 13.
> Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is
> ready for publication", are welcome!
> This is useful and important, even from authors.
> Thank you,
> Netmod Chairs
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list

> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list

Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <>

netmod mailing list