[netmod] mapping to snmp strings [Was: AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt]

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Sun, 15 December 2013 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD811AE1EC for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 13:58:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.438
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham
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 9TXOZGqt1C47 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 13:58:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [109.74.15.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 094DF1AE1EA for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 13:58:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [193.12.32.88]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3494C240C0F8 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Dec 2013 22:58:07 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 22:58:06 +0100
Message-Id: <20131215.225806.136583521.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5rc2 on Emacs 23.4 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [netmod] mapping to snmp strings [Was: AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt]
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 21:58:09 -0000

Hi,

I am starting a new thread for this issue.  We need to resolve this
pretty soon.

We have a couple of YANG leafs that the current documents (interface
and system) specify that an implementation MAY map to corresponding
SMIv2 objects.  The YANG leafs allow XML 1.0 characters (unicode w/
exceptions), and have no hard length limits, whereas the SMIv2 objects
are DisplayStrings - nvt-ascii of size max 255.

The current documents say that if an implementation map the YANG leaf
to the SMIv2 object, it MUST restrict the YANG values to match the
SMIv2 restrictions.

One (theoretical?) problem that is not handled in the documents is
that some C0 control codes are valid in DisplayStrings but not valid
in a YANG string (e.g. BEL and VT).

The mappings are:

   /interfaces/interface/description - ifAlias
   /interfaces-state/interface/name  - ifName
   /system/contact                   - sysContact
   /system/location                  - sysLocation

Note that the interfaces document is in IETF Last Call.

Here are some options:

  1.  Do nothing; keep current text.

      NOTE: not clear how we handle DisplayString characters
      that are not legal YANG string characters.

  2.  Say that implementations MAY map, but that they need to do some
      vendor-specific translation procedure to handle the difference
      in character sets and lengths.

  3.  Like 2 + add an additional config false leaf in the YANG model
      to inform the YANG client about the resulting value.  (NOTE:
      this value is of course already available over SNMP).

  4.  Make the YANG leafs and SMIv2 objects separate, i.e., do not
      specify that there is a mapping between them.

Comments?

My preference is 4, followed by 2.


/martin