Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-09.txt

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

From: Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>
Sent: 03 October 2019 23:09
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-09.txt



On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:31 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Chris,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Hopps <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Sent: 03 October 2019 16:16
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: Christian Hopps <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-09.txt
>
> [resending to include list cc]
>
> > On Oct 3, 2019, at 5:45 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > As discussed offline, you have left out the "masked-tag" container in
> the "modules-tags-state" module.
>
> One might read this as an objection that was discussed offline, but I
> don't think you are objecting, you're just stating what happened, correct?

Correct, not objecting, although I might be about to 😉

Generally, I think that is what is available in "module-tags-state" should be directly equivalent to what is available in the operational datastore for servers that support NMDA.

So, my previous comments were trying to align these two together.  I.e. if you think that "masked-tag" isn't needed in "module-tags-state" then I think that there is the equivalent question of whether it should be reported in <operational>.

What is unusual in this case, is that you have some configuration that removes items from another list.


>
> > For consistently, I wonder, whether there shouldn't also be a comment in
> the "masked-tag" leaf-list in the main NMDA compatible module to indicate
> that "masked-tag" isn't reported in the operational state datastore
> because the information is combined into the "tag" leaf-list.
>
> Ok, color me confused. For NMDA, why wouldn't masked-tag show up in
> operational datastore?

By default it would.


IMO the non-NMDA state module should have the same structure as the NMDA version.
Any configured masked-tag entries that are applied will appear in <operational> and also
the non-NMDA version.

Please don't start making all kinds of special cases in NMDA.
If a configured value has an applied value, it is expected in both <operational>
and the non-NMDA module for the <operational> contents.

[RW]
I agree.

Keeping things consistent is likely to make life easier for both clients and servers because it means fewer special cases.

Thanks,
Rob




Andy



> Isn't the operational datastore the union of the
> applied intended config (config true nodes) plus the config false nodes?

Sort of yes.

What is in <operational> is the "actual operational state in effect in the system".  For configurable items, this is often, but not necessarily, the same as "applied intended config".


>
> Non-NMDA has no concept of "applied" (operational state of config true
> nodes), that is why masked-tags don't go in the module-tags-state
> container. The user can still read the configured masked-tag value on the
> normal non-deprecated module in the non-NMDA case.

On balance, I'm not sure this was the right choice.  I think that it might be easier to include "masked-tags" in module-tags-state, and have it just report the list of tags that have been masked.  I.e. exactly the same meaning as NMDA.

Thanks,
Rob


>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: netmod <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> >> Sent: 25 September 2019 17:19
> >> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> >> Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action:
> >> draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-09.txt
> >>
> >> This adds the deprecated non-NMDA state module.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Chris.
> >>
> >>> On Sep 25, 2019, at 12:15 PM, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> >> directories.
> >>> This draft is a work item of the Network Modeling WG of the IETF.
> >>>
> >>>       Title           : YANG Module Tags
> >>>       Authors         : Christian Hopps
> >>>                         Lou Berger
> >>>                         Dean Bogdanovic
> >>>   Filename        : draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-09.txt
> >>>   Pages           : 18
> >>>   Date            : 2019-09-25
> >>>
> >>> Abstract:
> >>>  This document provides for the association of tags with YANG modules.
> >>>  The expectation is for such tags to be used to help classify and
> >>> organize modules.  A method for defining, reading and writing a
> >>> modules tags is provided.  Tags may be registered and assigned
> >>> during  module definition; assigned by implementations; or
> >>> dynamically  defined and set by users.  This document also provides
> >>> guidance to  future model writers; as such, this document updates
> RFC8407.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags/
> >>>
> >>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-09
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-
> >>> 09
> >>>
> >>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-09
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> >>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> >> tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>.
> >>>
> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> netmod mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >>>
> >

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod