Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lada,


On 26/02/2018 14:05, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Robert Wilton <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> I've got no desire or intent to try and slow down the NI and LNE drafts,
>> or any that depend on them.  I actually agree that this is critically
>> important that IETF gets modules standardized/finished so that everyone
>> can use them.
>>
>> However, ...
>>
>> YLbis has quite a different structure to YL.  The main part of this
>> change was to support NMDA, the other part of this change was to better
>> support things like SM, or YANG packages.
>>
>> I don't think that there is a clean, backwards compatible, way to go
>> from the YANG module in SM -08 to one that is going to work well with
>> YLbis and other YLbis extensions/augmentations that seem to be coming
> I don't think this is true - all YANG modules that work with -08 should
> work with pre-09.
Sorry, I think that my point wasn't clear:

I don't think that you can go from the ietf-yang-schema-mount YANG 
module defined in SM -08 to something like the ietf-yang-schema-mount 
YANG module defined in pre09 in a backwards compatible way.  I.e. just 
following the "Updating a Module" in RFC 7950 chapter 11.

In terms of the actual modules that are being mounted, I agree, all 
modules will work in both.


>
>> down the line.  Given what we know now, I believe that the correct
>> medium/long term structure for the SM YANG module, taking YLbis into
>> account, is the one proposed in pre09, because it directly augments the
>> YLbis structure, and hence any future augmentations to YLbis should
>> automatically extend to SM mounted schema as well.
>>
>> I think that the likely future technical issues with the -08 module will be:
>> - supporting NMDA in a clean consistent way
>> - adding in support for SemVer
>> - additional capability reporting as an augmentation to YANG library
>>
>> So, if -08 proceeds as is, then it seems to me like one of three things
>> will need to happen:
>> 1) Their will need to be a non backwards compatible update to the SM
>> model that is the same/similar to pre09.
>> 2) YLbis and SM diverge, stuff that augments YLbis doesn't work for
>> explicitly mounted schema.
> An acceptable compromise for me would be to publish -08 and accept both
> 1 and 2 above. The benefits of doing so would be
>
> - LNE/NI work won't be blocked
>
> - some experience may be gained from the implementers that can improve
>    the ultimate YLbis-based solution
>
> - there will be more time to reconsider the design and presentation of
>    the two concepts (inline and use-schema).
>
>> 3) We accrue technical debt, implementations need to support two YL
>> module structures, the one in SM and the one in YLbis, and future
>> extensions need to augment both the SM structure and YLbis structure.
> If we eventually do the right thing, then SM in the -08 form will be
> abandoned along with the old YL.
>
> Lada
Thanks,
Rob


>
>> I don't like the idea of (2) or (3), but I don't know if others will
>> find (1) acceptable.
>>
>> But I do agree that we are just going round in circles on this:
>> - Using the pre09 structure is not acceptable to some folks
>> - Publishing a draft with both -08 and pre09 structure is liked by even
>> less folks.
>>
>> Perhaps publishing -08 is the only option.  My hope is that the WG will
>> support somebody subsequently doing solution (1), otherwise it seems
>> like a missed opportunity to get this right.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On 24/02/2018 13:54, Christian Hopps wrote:
>>> My position,
>>>
>>> It may be the case that there's even a better cleaner solution;
>>> however, it's simply too late for major modifications to this work
>>> that don't actually address functional failures.  The draft as
>>> proposed works for the people who need to get work done.
>>>
>>> We have multiple pending RFCs - MISREF on this document. These RFCs
>>> would have to be pulled from the RFC EDITOR queue, and reworked to be
>>> compliant again, and this very well could lead to discovering issues
>>> with your new proposal. Any new issues discovered in either the
>>> pending RFCs *or* in the new solution would then need to be worked out
>>> and fixed. Please recall that this actually occurred on the first
>>> round (i.e., doing the examples led to discovering problems with the
>>> drafts), so it's not unreasonable at all to assume this would happen
>>> again.
>>>
>>> Look this just isn't a simple change your proposing. It involves a
>>> large upheaval, killing the pending RFC status on multiple documents
>>> that the industry is waiting on. Please see this.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chris.
>>>
>>>
>>> Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Robert Wilton <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Lou,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that this solution is inferior to the model presented in
>>>>> pre-09.
>>>> I agree.  Servers that are NMDA-compliant, or implements YANG Library
>>>> bis will have to present schemas in two different structures,
>>>> depending on where the schema is used, and clients will have to code
>>>> for both.  With the solution in pre-09, there is just one structure.
>>>> A single structure also has other benefits (apart from being simpler),
>>>> e.g., if we augment it with the meta data that has been discussed
>>>> recently, we can augment a single structure.
>>>> /martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I would prefer that we publish pre09 instead, potentially including
>>>>> the -08 model in the appendix if that helps progress the document in a
>>>>> more expedient fashion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22/02/2018 16:18, Lou Berger wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I have a bunch of different roles WRT this work. This mail is being
>>>>>> sent as an individual - as chair, I fully support the previous chair
>>>>>> statements on this draft.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris and I have come up with a proposal on how to provide full NMDA
>>>>>> as part the existing schema-mount module. Our motivation was to
>>>>>> enable full NMDA support with *minimal* change to the model and
>>>>>> disruption to the LC'ed work. The key NMDA limitation, with -08, that
>>>>>> we are aiming to address is the ability to support different mounted
>>>>>> schema in different datastores for non-inline mount points. (See more
>>>>>> detailed description below if interested full nuances of limitations
>>>>>> of -08)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What we came up with was to simply add a (leaf)list to identify in
>>>>>> which datastores a
>>>>>> schema-mount schema is valid/present. This is somewhat similar to
>>>>>> YL-bis schema/module-set. Specifically we're proposing (see below for
>>>>>> full tree below):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    +--ro schema* [name]
>>>>>>    +--ro name string
>>>>>> ADD +--ro datastore* ds:datastore-ref {revised-datastores}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This approach has the advantages of supporting different mounted
>>>>>> schema in different DSes, working with both NMDA and non-NMDA
>>>>>> implementations, supporting all of the extensively discussed features
>>>>>> of schema mount (including recursive mounts), and having minor/scoped
>>>>>> impact on all dependent work. The main downside is that it isn't the
>>>>>> most optimal/compact solution possible if we were to base this
>>>>> work on
>>>>>> YL-bis/pre09 draft. Of course -08 isn't necessarily optimal from all
>>>>>> perspectives, but it is what was agreed to as sufficient by those who
>>>>>> contribute to the WG discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In short, we see this as a solution to addresses the raised last call
>>>>>> issue with the minimal impact on -08 and dependent work -- which is
>>>>>> what is appropriate given where we are in the process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So our/my question really is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Is this a solution that you/all can live with?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note: optimization, design preference and perfect alignment with use
>>>>>> or YL-bis are not part of our question as we both don't think that is
>>>>>> the right question given where we are in the WG process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lou (with ideas developed with Chris, and chair hat off)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ======
>>>>>> Details -- for those who want
>>>>>> ======
>>>>>> As background, my understanding/view is that the -08 version of the
>>>>>> both NMDA and non-NMDA supporting implementations, but there are
>>>>>> limitations in its NMDA applicability. Used with Yang Library,
>>>>>> [rfc7895], only non-NMDA implementations can be supported. When used
>>>>>> with the revised Yang Library defined in
>>>>>> [I.D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-], NMDA implementations can be
>>>>>> supported with certain limitations. Specifically, this document
>>>>>> requires use of the now deprecated module-list grouping, and the same
>>>>>> schema represented in schema list of the Schema Mount module MUST be
>>>>>> used in all datastores. Inline type mount points, which don't use the
>>>>>> schema list, can support different schema in different data stores
>>>>>> not by instantiating the [I.D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-] version of
>>>>>> YANG library under the inline mount point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    module: ietf-yang-schema-mount
>>>>>>    +--ro schema-mounts
>>>>>>    +--ro namespace* [prefix]
>>>>>>    | +--ro prefix yang:yang-identifier
>>>>>>    | +--ro uri? inet:uri
>>>>>>    +--ro mount-point* [module name]
>>>>>>    | +--ro module yang:yang-identifier
>>>>>>    | +--ro name yang:yang-identifier
>>>>>>    | +--ro config? boolean
>>>>>>    | +--ro (schema-ref)?
>>>>>>    | +--:(inline)
>>>>>>    | | +--ro inline? empty
>>>>>>    | +--:(use-schema)
>>>>>>    | +--ro use-schema* [name]
>>>>>>    | +--ro name
>>>>>>    | | -> /schema-mounts/schema/name
>>>>>>    | +--ro parent-reference* yang:xpath1.0
>>>>>>    +--ro schema* [name]
>>>>>>    +--ro name string
>>>>>> ADD +--ro datastore* ds:datastore-ref {revised-datastores}
>>>>>>     +--ro module* [name revision]
>>>>>>    | +--ro name yang:yang-identifier
>>>>>>    | +--ro revision union
>>>>>>    | +--ro schema? inet:uri
>>>>>>    | +--ro namespace inet:uri
>>>>>>    | +--ro feature* yang:yang-identifier
>>>>>>    | +--ro deviation* [name revision]
>>>>>>    | | +--ro name yang:yang-identifier
>>>>>>    | | +--ro revision union
>>>>>>    | +--ro conformance-type enumeration
>>>>>>    | +--ro submodule* [name revision]
>>>>>>    | +--ro name yang:yang-identifier
>>>>>>    | +--ro revision union
>>>>>>    | +--ro schema? inet:uri
>>>>>>    +--ro mount-point* [module name]
>>>>>>    +--ro module yang:yang-identifier
>>>>>>    +--ro name yang:yang-identifier
>>>>>>    +--ro config? boolean
>>>>>>    +--ro (schema-ref)?
>>>>>>    +--:(inline)
>>>>>>    | +--ro inline? empty
>>>>>>    +--:(use-schema)
>>>>>>    +--ro use-schema* [name]
>>>>>>    +--ro name
>>>>>>    | -> /schema-mounts/schema/name
>>>>>>    +--ro parent-reference* yang:xpath1.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We would expect that the revised-datastores feature would be used
>>>>>> (perhaps required) for any implementation that supports
>>>>>> ietf-datastores
>>>>>> and yl-bis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>> .
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod