IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Tue, 16 January 2018 13:50 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 D4E461314E0 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 05:50:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 2nmINvRaBRWh for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 05:50:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F4EC1314D4 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 05:50:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.56]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 915CA1AE0399; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:50:03 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:50:03 +0100
Message-Id: <20180116.145003.1110791592584714461.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: lberger@labn.net
Cc: lhotka@nic.cz, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <160ff28ef68.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
References: <160feef5550.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <20180116.142407.1498790690296330642.mbj@tail-f.com> <160ff28ef68.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@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/poTI5yX57qWtttFy_qySuW894G0>
Subject: Re: [netmod] schema mount and YANG library
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: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:50:08 -0000

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> On January 16, 2018 8:24:42 AM Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
> >> Lada,
> >>
> >>
> >> On January 16, 2018 7:07:15 AM Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 06:30 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> >> >> Lada,
> >> >>
> >> >> It sounds like you are proposing in (1) a fairly significant change in
> >> >> the
> >> >> direction of the draft and in (2) a basic approach that has been
> >> >
> >> > It is no change in direction, just a simplification of the
> >> > schema-describing
> >> > state data. Given the recent developments in 7895bis it makes no sense
> >> > to me to
> >> > have two "schema" lists if we can have just one.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Managing transition is hard. It's also highlights why Yang Library
> >> this needs to be at least equally discussed in this group.
> >>
> >> I will talk with my co-chairs and perhaps the ADs to get their opinion
> >> on making such a change this point in the process.
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> rejectected by the WG multiple times.  FWIW there are drafts already
> >> >> with
> >> >
> >> > No at all. The first and last time I proposed this was on 15 December
> >> > 2017:
> >> >
> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg19753.html
> >> >
> >>
> >> Oh, I certainly would call you proposing that the schema for inline be
> >> part of the rest of the schema Mount module well before that. I'm sure
> >> I can dig up mail / slides it really necessary...
> >
> > I don't think this has been proposed before.  All previous proposals
> > were basically variants on what is now "use-schema", which works fine
> > when all instances have the same schema.  This new proposal solves the
> > issue with different schemas in different instances.
> >
> 
> I thought the previous proposals that as well, so don't see material
> difference - at least from the usage standpoint. I also don't see why
> the previous arguments that resulted in consensus for using Yang
> Library underneath the an in line Mount Point don't apply.

B/c it doesn't work well with the NMDA.  You can't mount yang library
in the configuration datastores; it has to be mounted in operational.
With meta-data, you can actually report the correct schema even in
running.  (This is actually true also for pre-NMDA systems).


/martin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email