Re: [NGO] external module properties

"David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Mon, 28 April 2008 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ngo-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ngo-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ngo-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6967828C251; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ngo@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ngo@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3442B28C290 for <ngo@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.491
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KCOLXnWOiNF3 for <ngo@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from QMTA08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAB0D28C1CD for <ngo@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from OMTA03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.27]) by QMTA08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id K36S1Z0490bG4ec5804v00; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:28:01 +0000
Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.128.66.199]) by OMTA03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id K5Tz1Z00a4HwxpC3P00200; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:28:02 +0000
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=8pif782wAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=noXOvMbu_kFOucFsWSQA:9 a=hIDd4ruOOBlqVdgUK9sA:7 a=ioPZV-xUOVNF-4U9BC0okmd5Hw8A:4 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=50e4U0PicR4A:10
From: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: 'Andy Bierman' <ietf@andybierman.com>, 'NETCONF Goes On' <ngo@ietf.org>
References: <48137444.6070802@andybierman.com><20080426203103.GA22324@elstar.local><4813A0EC.50209@andybierman.com><20080427061550.GB22643@elstar.local><5D258F3C-D164-4759-B743-45B33CEF2A6E@jdscons.com><4814A0A1.4040507@andybierman.com><20080428080625.GA23300@elstar.local> <4815D8DB.3040301@andybierman.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:27:59 -0400
Message-ID: <001a01c8a955$36392c50$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <4815D8DB.3040301@andybierman.com>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Thread-Index: AcipOHSgh2EQD14WQjaK1CCcUxgX3gAAurDw
Subject: Re: [NGO] external module properties
X-BeenThere: ngo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF Goes On - discussions on future work and extensions to NETCONF <ngo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo>, <mailto:ngo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ngo>
List-Post: <mailto:ngo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ngo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo>, <mailto:ngo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ngo-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ngo-bounces@ietf.org

Hi,

It is important for an NMS to be able to tell which version of a data
model is supported by a managed element, so when it makes changes to a
configuration, it can make changes appropriate to the version
supported.

On a side note, keep in mind that some managed elements may have
multiple components, such as blades in a chassis, and the versions
supported might differ, so a Netconf server might also need to know
which version to use to perform validation.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ngo-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ngo-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:02 AM
> To: Andy Bierman; Jon Saperia; NETCONF Goes On
> Subject: Re: [NGO] external module properties
> 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 08:49:53AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > 
> >> My point is that we need to thinking more holistically about the
> >> entire management system, which includes problems such as 
> human factors
> >> and module life-cycle.
> > 
> > A data modeling language specification is the wrong place to
address
> > human factors.
> 
> Really?  I thought YANG existed to provide the human-friendly 
> data modeling
> interface that XSD and DSDL cannot provide.  It seems to me 
> human factors
> are critical to CM.  Configuration errors are a big problem in real
> networks.  Providing an API and operational environment which is
> resistant to human-introduced errors is a very high priority to me.
> 
> > 
> >> We tried the 'blinders-on' approach with SMING/EOS and that
didn't
> >> work out so well.  Focusing on the DML and ignoring the 
> protocol (or
> >> vice versa) leads to incomplete or broken solutions.
> > 
> > YANG is NETCONF very specific; it is by its very design a domain
> > specific language for NETCONF data models and not comparable to
> > SMING/EOS.
> 
> 
> I think there are plenty of similarities and lessons to be learned
> from SMING and EOS.  I believe you wrote an RFC on the subject. ;-)
> The YANG and 'Why YANG?' drafts cite the SMIng language
> as the starting point for YANG.
> 
> 
> > 
> >> Of course the namespace URI is mandatory, because it is needed
> >> to properly implement the NETCONF protocol.  The 'YANG philosphy'
> >> (whatever that is) has nothing to do with it.  Likewise, the
> >> revision date is needed to properly implement NETCONF
applications.
> > 
> > There is a fine distinction here between a language definition
their
> > implementations and the usage of a language in a larger context.
For
> > me, a missing revision statement is something I like to generate a
> > warning for but it is not an error since NETCONF continues 
> to function
> > without the revision information.
> > 
> > Note that I am not concerned about this particular case so 
> much; I am
> > concerned the logic behind. The SMI has been full of CLRs 
> in order to
> > make this a better world and with YANG we tried to get over this
and
> > we tried to reduce CLRs to a minimum, leaving the specification of
> > CLRs to CLR documents (called coding styles in the software 
> world and
> > guidelines in this space).
> > 
> 
> I disagree.
> This is a known problem in XML and CM, which needs to be addressed.
> Should we standardize on the namespace URI as the version ID?
> I hope not.  IMO, we need a standard version field that can be
> retrieved with the the schema-discovery DM, and is deterministically
> derived from the YANG module (or explicitly entered, like 
> LAST-UPDATED).
> 
> IMO, it is a bad idea to mix modules with and without versions.
> The namespace-stmt is mandatory because YANG is forcing good 
> XML usage.
> Forcing the use of a version ID for good XML usage is no different.
> 
> 
> >> YANG is not decoupled from NETCONF, and NETCONF is not decoupled
> >> from the actual CM problem space.  One needs to consider 
> that sometimes
> >> CLRs are really CBRs, and important for real interoperability.
> > 
> > Which one of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBR> do you mean? I
guess
> > you mean the "Comic_Book_Resources". ;-)
> > 
> 
> Not Constant Bit Rate either.
> 
> Crappy Big Rule.
> 
> > /js
> > 
> 
> Andy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NGO mailing list
> NGO@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo
> 

_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
NGO@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo