Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Wed, 14 June 2017 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.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 858D412EC2B; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 NpGUPxxNITaZ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x232.google.com (mail-pg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F0A112EB69; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x232.google.com with SMTP id a70so1636109pge.3; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=1RtjotP7TcplKypnkAIAbxtV0XLsVEblwbcalmEfr9I=; b=GwqRVsYiCgfLLgSggiI0DXkDp5YpyvWgzfQdZxfs52l1KSi+SGOOgkETlyJuna9uLZ ZofUZZLbg96k+RLc2r+Up5+w5fpI/+OtoC6vykCpkjJKSNGbYROzkvgsI6DeVhe/R9/1 qX3/paw7QLUuKrAJ5PL2TeZWf5QP+SKXKf9CQ5MR0juHHhMwPwSQAI6GD97GaBdaAXGu H6EEzJ6O4emS4r665WSFR14+V4vn922Y+pukrjGZE1MjsTePLsz4BPwWsWzLRSKH8Ov0 xBxDbePaqrGGn14rdrslzsGotqLvKgJWytNbmQp5JvSPx8sUhAbeBsu2puaOZO9cPCWK 51Ew==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=1RtjotP7TcplKypnkAIAbxtV0XLsVEblwbcalmEfr9I=; b=o3g/DTONDxI/rNCco//DUbhD92M3JOHDOd6U0Jk8hgphLOX8FIXRP7Q2sOJkvp3lpD 4ZGPzgXItZakhLfHRq2wYjhqJ3/tQ4fdidWm/lQpgqa2Bgx8jZ/sLiJZbtnMcN16TgVd Voj1rVQalmiSX8BnT5AEc/KRKPVGDOCfpDxB41AJwS/MFOEzDSy11rfitCi/7anKTHtj GDxsDZ232VL/GtjqvTwMbkWu5HcMrQYS4OXvsFvn0VWgCLa/mkc5DzcT5OPDKcOhJwEF EvRNOrGIARlk8irACT8S1MwQ+GF60lPpmBGNWqxOBdehdZKg92xXkdEfsaYF5Wj9GgID 0RRQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOyyJuRPC4TI+OnbsafJHQhcPBOjJCxa3n36DkvXhMnlDuoyo81O LmQqy0rWf5dYFA==
X-Received: by 10.99.66.135 with SMTP id p129mr577822pga.107.1497453837027; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc-mahesh-nitro7.cisco.com ([128.107.241.191]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z4sm535773pgc.22.2017.06.14.08.23.55 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2513fdd0-a8b3-b547-8c37-c736c575c4bc@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:23:54 -0700
Cc: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines@ietf.org" <draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0505FAA8-BB82-4BCB-B4A5-E8018260580D@gmail.com>
References: <BN3PR0201MB0867C18E5FF7239EE991F720F1C20@BN3PR0201MB0867.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <20170613200928.GA55527@elstar.local> <CY1PR0201MB0875F3203D6D4DFD606061FAF1C30@CY1PR0201MB0875.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <2513fdd0-a8b3-b547-8c37-c736c575c4bc@cisco.com>
To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/z28NCziwaQohPLgW1Mo8k1on11c>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Clarification Question on draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01
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: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:23:59 -0000

> On Jun 14, 2017, at 8:10 AM, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Xufeng,
> 
> 
> On 14/06/2017 14:01, Xufeng Liu wrote:
>> Hi Juergen,
>> 
>> Thanks for the confirmation.
>> As for the distinction between applied configuration and operational, I think that it has been determined to be useful in some use cases. We can create a separate leaf in such a case.
> Yes, I think that this is exactly the right approach.
> 
> In the general case, a single leaf for applied configuration and the operational value is normally sufficient.
> 
> But in some cases (e.g. where a value could be configured and/or negotiated via protocol) then it sometimes useful to both see the input into the protocol negotiation and also the resultant output value.
> 
> Here, there is a choice to be made to decide whether the extra config false leaf represents the input value into the negotiation, or the output value.  I think that the decision probably depends on the protocol semantics, but all things being equal, there is a benefit if the configured value and actual operational value end up being represented by the same leaf/path (since this in the case in the mainline case where extra config false leaves are not required).

Another way to look at it is whether the input value is truly different from the output value. For example, if the input value is auto-negotiation, a boolean, but the output value is a speed of 10/100/1000/10000, a uint32, then a separate leaf makes sense.

> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> - Xufeng
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 4:10 PM
>>> To: Xufeng Liu <Xufeng_Liu@jabil.com>
>>> Cc: draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: Clarification Question on draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> the typical -state tree consists of config false nodes and hence it represents
>>> operational state. This is not a transitioning period question, this is how -state
>>> trees were designed. Note also that the applied configuration is part of the
>>> operational state in NMDA - for config true objects, there is no difference
>>> between the applied configuration value and the operationally used value - they
>>> are the same.
>>> 
>>> /js
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 07:53:32PM +0000, Xufeng Liu wrote:
>>>> During discussing the adoption of this guidelines, a question came up w.r.t. the
>>> semantics of the non-NMDA "-state" module during the transitioning period:
>>>> What kind of state do the leaves in the "-state" module represent? The applied
>>> configuration or the actually used operational data?
>>>> Since only of the two types can be represented, what is the guideline to model
>>> the other type?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> - Xufeng
>>> --
>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>> .
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com