Re: [pim] [yang-doctors] Optional key support?

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andy,

From: Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 2:44 PM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" <[e-mail]>, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>, Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, YANG Doctors <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Optional key support?



On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


From: Andy Bierman <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 2:29 PM
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, YANG Doctors <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Optional key support?



On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Lada, Andy,

I guess I’m missing something in this discussion. Why is a key leaf with a defaulted value any more complex to deal with than a leaf with an explicitly specified value? I just don’t get it…


If YANG-next ever turns into YANG 1.2 we can discuss the complexities of list instantiation and protocol interactions at that time.
A YANG default is the value that is implemented if no value is provided by the client.
It means the server MUST fully implement the leaf value semantics as if the client provided the default value.
IMO this is not the same thing at all as a missing key that is supposed to mean "key not applicable".

And I believe the default value for a key leaf would satisfy the requirement… Hopefully w/o the complexities of an N/A key.



So the problem to be solved is that it is too much of a burden on the client to provide
the default key leaf value?  It is not as if it can be ignored.  Retrieval of the list
entry will include all the keys.

In some cases (like the case of protocols), the key isn’t applicable. So, semantically it is confusing for the client. We could restrict the key default to keys subsequent to the first.

Edits on the candidate datastore become more complex.
Is that missing key going to be provided in a subsequent edit before the commit?

I can see your point here. We’d need to define the behavior and I’d say “no”, if a default key is changed, it is a separate list entry.

Thanks,
Acee


Thanks,
Acee



Andy


Thanks,
Acee


Andy


From: Andy Bierman <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 1:31 PM
To: "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, YANG Doctors <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Optional key support?



On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Robert Wilton <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
It looks like the final reason that it was not accepted was because the change was regarded as being too big for YANG 1.1.  As such, it seems reasonable for this issue to be on Yang.next and considered again.

My objection to it was that it had a huge impact on the protocols and the implementations.
The added complexity is not worth it.

It is not that hard to define a value that indicates "not really used".
That is not the same as "use the default".  Doing this in an elegant way
instead of ad-hoc requires coordinated solutions in YANG, protocols, and servers.

There are probably lots of complex YANG text changes because the concept of an
instance (and an instance-identifier) is so different. Also augment, leafref,
and other cross-model dependencies are impacted.


Thanks,
Rob



Andy


On 24/10/2018 15:53, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Read through the discussion and it is a shame we can't converge on a solution. Is YANG 1.0 compatibility the major issue?
Thanks,
Acee

On 10/24/18, 1:48 AM, "yang-doctors on behalf of Martin Bjorklund" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

     Andy Bierman <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
     > Hi,
     >
     > It has been discussed before.
     > It is already allowed for config=false nodes so the change would be to
     > allow config=true nodes
     > to have no keys.
     >
     > Each time it comes up, somebody mentions that
     > (a) NETCONF/RESTCONF has no mechanism to delete all list entries
     > (b) The client cannot create more than 1 entry. How does the server know
     >      the next entry is a different instance or replacing the first instance?
          I don't think these were the reasons.  See the proposal that was on
     the table for 1.1:
          http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/netmod/yang-1.1/issues.html#sec-10
          and the discussion:
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/?gbt=1&index=bwacmVipuJMakMFjDXXCZMXCTAA
                    /martin
               > What is the use-case for a config list without keys?
     >
     >
     > Andy
     >
     >
     > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > wrote:
     >
     > > <Changed subject>
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Hi Xufeng,
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > I don’t know if this has been discussed for yang-next but it doesn’t seem
     > > to be in the yang-next list. I believe optional keys were discussed for
     > > YANG1.1, maybe others on the YD list remember…
     > >
     > > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > In this case, I believe it would have been useful to have that
     > > functionality.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Regards,
     > >
     > > Reshad.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > *From: *Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > > *Date: *Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 4:39 PM
     > > *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > > *Cc: *"[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Mahesh Sivakumar <
     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Stig Venaas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Guofeng <
     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Anish Peter <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "
     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Liuyisong <
     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Pete McAllister <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "
     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > > *Subject: *Re: [yang-doctors] [pim] Yangdoctors last call review of
     > > draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-07
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Hi Reshad and All,
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Do you think that it would be useful to eventually extend YANG spec to
     > > allow an optional key with a default value? That would allow the user not
     > > to enter the extra empty string, and make the model more user friendly.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Thanks,
     > >
     > > - Xufeng
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:02 AM Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <
     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
     > >
     > > Hi Xufeng,
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > I think we should go with the solution proposed by Chris (attached) when
     > > we last discussed this. I realize it’s not ideal but IMO it’s better than
     > > other proposals.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Regards,
     > >
     > > Reshad.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > *From: *yang-doctors <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Xufeng
     > > Liu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > > *Date: *Friday, October 19, 2018 at 9:21 AM
     > > *To: *"[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > > *Cc: *Mahesh Sivakumar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Stig Venaas <
     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Guofeng <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Anish Peter <
     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
     > > Liuyisong <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Pete McAllister <
     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > > *Subject: *Re: [yang-doctors] [pim] Yangdoctors last call review of
     > > draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-07
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Hi Jan,
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Thanks for reviewing.
     > >
     > > For #1, as discussed, there is no other better solution at the moment.
     > > What would you suggest?
     > >
     > > Thanks.
     > >
     > > - Xufeng
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 4:25 AM Jan Lindblad <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
     > >
     > > Feng,
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Hi Jan,
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > We updated  draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang according to the comments #2 ~
     > > #7, while Xufeng and you had discussed about comment #1.
     > >
     > > Please review the draft, thanks a lot.
     > >
     > > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-08.txt
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Good. I looked through the points #2-#7 and find that the work group have
     > > understood and fixed those issues. #1 still remains to be resolved. I can
     > > do a full re-review of the module once that one has been resolved as well..
     > > Are there any outstanding questions on how to fix #1?
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Best Regards,
     > >
     > > /jan
     > >
     > > --
     > >
     > > *Jan Lindblad*, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>, [phone]
     > >
     > > Solutions Architect, Business Development, Tail-f
     > >
     > > Tail-f is now a part of Cisco
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Feng
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > -----Original Message-----
     > >
     > > From: Jan Lindblad [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>]
     > >
     > > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 10:35 PM
     > >
     > > To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
     > >
     > > Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
     > >
     > > Subject: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-07
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Reviewer: Jan Lindblad
     > >
     > > Review result: On the Right Track
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > This is my YANG-doctor review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-07. In the
     > > spring, I did an early review of the -02 version.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Most of the comments from the earlier review are still valid. In some ways
     > > the document has progressed since -02, in many it has not, and in a few it
     > > has deteriorated. In my judgement, the document is not ready for last call.
     > > Many fundamentally important questions are still unresolved. Here are my
     > > review comments in rough falling order of importance.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > #1 Improper augment of /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Quoted from section 3.1:
     > >
     > >    This model augments the core routing data model "ietf-routing"
     > >
     > >    specified in [RFC8349].  The IGMP model augments "/rt:routing/
     > >
     > >    rt:control-plane-protocols" as opposed to augmenting "/rt:routing/
     > >
     > >    rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol", as the latter
     > >
     > >    would allow multiple protocol instances, while the IGMP protocol is
     > >
     > >    designed to be enabled or disabled as a single protocol instance on
     > >
     > >    a network instance or a logical network element.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > The description above, and the actual augment statements in the YANG
     > > module violate the principles described in RFC 8349, the ietf-routing.yang
     > > module it augments. In RFC 8349, section 5.3.  Control-Plane Protocol, the
     > > proper way of augmenting the routing module is described. The fact that
     > > this is a singleton protocol instance doesn't change this. Section 5.3
     > > describes singleton cases as well.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Guofeng: Xufeng has discussed with Jan about the comment, and it is closed.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > #2 Incorrect vendor refinement model
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Quoted from section 2.2:
     > >
     > >    For the same reason, wide constant ranges (for example, timer
     > >
     > >    maximum and minimum) will be used in the model.  It is expected that
     > >
     > >    vendors will augment the model with any specific restrictions that
     > >
     > >    might be required. Vendors may also extend the features list with
     > >
     > >    proprietary extensions.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > This is not acceptable. The principle suggested does not foster
     > > interoperability and useful standards. It is also not possible to do what
     > > the paragraph suggests in YANG. This was pointed out in the -02 review, and
     > > a suggestion was given there on how to address the problem.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Guofeng: We removed the paragraph above, and put the values discussed by
     > > Mcast Design Team.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > #3 Top level structures not optional
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Quoted from section 2.3:
     > >
     > >    The current document contains IGMP and MLD as separate schema
     > >
     > >    branches in the structure. The reason for this is to make it easier
     > >
     > >    for implementations which may optionally choose to support specific
     > >
     > >    address families. And the names of objects may be different between
     > >
     > >    the IPv4 (IGMP) and IPv6 (MLD) address families.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > This problem was also pointed out in the -02 review. The author suggests
     > > that implementing igmp and/or mld is optional. This is not reflected in the
     > > YANG module, however. As currently modeled, both are currently mandatory to
     > > implement. If-feature is used liberally in the module, and could be used
     > > here as well.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > #4 Unclear meaning of optional leaves
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Quoted from section 3.1:
     > >
     > >    Where fields are not genuinely essential to protocol operation, they
     > >
     > >    are marked as optional. Some fields will be essential but have a
     > >
     > >    default specified, so that they need not be configured explicitly.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > In fact, in the current version of the module, every leaf is optional
     > > (except keys, which cannot be optional). It is good to see the addition of
     > > defaults in many cases, but many unclear cases remain. E.g. leaf
     > > /igmp/global/enable is of type boolean. I understand what true and false
     > > implies for this leaf. But what does it mean if it is not set at all?
     > > Either add a default or describe the meaning in the description. Similarly,
     > > if the leaf version is not set on an igmp or mld interface, or on the
     > > interface-global level, what does that mean?
     > >
     > > Add default. require-router-alert? explicit-tracking? exclude-lite? Many
     > > of these are used in NP-containers inheriting all the from the root, which
     > > makes the use of mandatory highly discouraged in the current form. If the
     > > RFC 8349 augmentation principles are followed, the concern around mandatory
     > > falls, and some leafs with no sensible default could be marked mandatory
     > > instead.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > #5 All optional state
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > All state data is optional, which means a conforming server could very
     > > well decide not to implement it. E.g. discontinuity-time is optional.
     > > Should a manager count on this being available? A situation where every
     > > leaf is optional is as nice and flexible for server implementors as it is
     > > frustrating and complicated for manager implementors to consume. A YANG
     > > model is an API contract and should consider the needs of both sides. The
     > > way this has been designed reveals that no representation for the consumer
     > > side of this model has been involved in the design. I would suggest
     > > thinking through what is the most essential state data for a manager, and
     > > make some leafs mandatory.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > #6 Abundant copy-paste
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > There is abundant repetition in the YANG module. leaf version is defined 2
     > > times for igmp with identical definitions, and two more for mld with
     > > identical definitions. leaf enable is defined once for the interface
     > > global-level, and with identical definition on the interface local level.
     > > leaf last-member-query-interval, query-interval and half a dozen other
     > > leaves are defined twice with identical definitions.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > #7 Leaf interface in the rpc clear*groups on line 1124, 1094 has type
     > > string.
     > >
     > > Should be a leafref? Describe what values are valid. #8 Leaf group-policy,
     > > source-policy on line 486, 527, 624, 689: type string. Should be leafref?
     > >
     > > Describe what values are valid. #9 Leaf group on line 705, 1101, 1131: Is
     > > any
     > >
     > > ipv4/6 address ok, or only a multicast address? Model accordingly.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > *From:* pim [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>] *On
     > > Behalf Of *Jan Lindblad
     > > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 11, 2018 9:52 PM
     > > *To:* Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > > *Cc:* [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; ietf <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
     > > *Subject:* Re: [pim] Yangdoctors last call review of
     > > draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-07
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Xufeng,
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Thanks for the review and valuable comments.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > In regard to item #1, there was a discussion thread among the Yang
     > > Doctors, authors of RFC 8349, and Routing Area Yang Architecture Design
     > > Team, as attached below.  The discussion occurred during the review of a
     > > draft with the same issue as this one.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > I see, didn't know. Good. If this has been discussed to conclusion, then
     > > you should of course go with that decision.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > As mentioned earlier, there are a few other singleton protocols mapped
     > > into this structure, e.g. static. I think it would make sense to treat this
     > > the same. Principle of least astonishment.
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > Best Regards,
     > >
     > > /jan
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > >
     > > ================================
     > >
     > > 原始邮件
     > > 发件人：XufengLiu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > > 收件人：Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>Christian Hopps <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>Martin
     > > Bjorklund <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > > 抄送人：张征00007940;[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > > 日 期 ：2018年02月20日 22:30
     > > 主 题 ：RE: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have
     > > singlecontrol-plane-protocol instance
     > > Using "" as the name is better, but I am not sure that it is good enough.
     > > When we use ConfD to translate the model to a command line, if the option
     > > "tailf:cli-expose-key-name" is not used, we will have:
     > >
     > > edit routing control-plane-protocols control-plane-protocol type msdp name
     > > ''"
     > >
     > > If the option "tailf:cli-expose-key-name" is used, we will have:
     > >
     > > edit routing control-plane-protocols control-plane-protocol msdp ''"
     > >
     > > I am pretty sure that we would get a bug report on this, asking what is
     > > the purpose to have: name ''", and requesting a suppression on the term,
     > > but we do not have a good way to achieve.
     > >
     > > As a comparison, the option #3 will give:
     > >
     > > edit routing control-plane-protocols msdp
     > >
     > > This is the only acceptable solution so far. When a model is not usable by
     > > the end-user, other considerations (such as augmentation convenience) will
     > > not matter.
     > >
     > > Thanks,
     > > - Xufeng
     > >
     > > > -----Original Message-----
     > > > From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
     > > > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 1:35 PM
     > > > To: Christian Hopps <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Martin Bjorklund <
     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > > > Cc: Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; yang-
     > > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
     > > > Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single control-plane-
     > > > protocol instance
     > > >
     > > >
     > > >
     > > > On 2/19/18, 5:02 AM, "Christian Hopps" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
     > > >
     > > >
     > > >     Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> writes:
     > > >
     > > >     > Hi,
     > > >     >
     > > >     > "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
     > > >     >> All,
     > > >     >>
     > > >     >> As seems to be the modus operandi for YANG issues, we have 3
     > > separate
     > > > opinions as to how a protocol only supporting a single instance should be
     > > > realized.
     > > >     >>
     > > >     >>   1. Augment the existing control plane protocols list (RFC
     > > 8022BIS)
     > > >     >>   and specify in the description text that only a single instance
     > > is
     > > >     >>   supported.
     > > >     >>   2. Augment the existing control plane protocols list (RFC
     > > 8022BIS)
     > > >     >>   and use a YANG 1.1 must() restriction as discussed by Martin and
     > > >     >>   Lada.
     > > >     >>   3. Augment the container one level up from the list for
     > > singleton
     > > >     >>   protocols (suggested by Xufeng).
     > > >
     > > >     > But I think there was also a proposal to require the single
     > > instance
     > > >     > to have a well-known name - but maybe this proposal is no longer on
     > > >     > the table.
     > > >
     > > >     I actually liked this solution; however, instead of picking an
     > > arbitrary "well-
     > > > known" value for name, I would specify the 0 length string instead. I
     > > think that
     > > > reinforces the idea that this isn't actually a named instance. :)
     > > >
     > > >        augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/"
     > > >              + "rt:control-plane-protocol" {
     > > >           when "derived-from-or-self(rt:type, 'msdp:msdp') and rt:name =
     > > ''"  {
     > > >           container msdp {
     > > >
     > > > One benefit of this solution is that it solves Xufeng's issue of what
     > > the client uses
     > > > as the instance name.
     > > >
     > > >
     > > >     Thanks,
     > > >     Chris.
     > > >
     > > >     >
     > > >     >
     > > >     > /martin
     > > >     >
     > > >     >
     > > >     >> and #3. For #3, one determent would be that the control plane
     > > protocols
     > > > are in a location other than where they were originally envisioned and I
     > > don't
     > > > relish pulling RFC8022BIS off the RFC queue to document.
     > > >     >>
     > > >     >> Thanks,
     > > >     >> Acee
     > > >     >>
     > > >     >> On 2/15/18, 8:39 AM, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
     > > >
     > > > wrote:
     > > >     >>
     > > >     >>     Hi Xufeng,
     > > >     >>
     > > >     >>     I think the intent of 8022bis was to have all protocols under
     > > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol. I
     > > agree that
     > > > forcing a name for a single-instance is cumbersome, but I think it is
     > > too late to
     > > > change tree hierachy organization at this point.
     > > >     >>
     > > >     >>     I will defer to other YDs and 8022bis authors on this.
     > > >     >>
     > > >     >>     Regards,
     > > >     >>     Reshad.
     > > >     >>
     > > >     >>     On 2018-02-08, 9:48 AM, "Xufeng Liu" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > > wrote:
     > > >     >>
     > > >     >>         Hi All,
     > > >     >>
     > > >     >>         I feel that such a solution is still not clean enough to
     > > outweigh the
     > > > simple augmentation to "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/".
     > > >     >>
     > > >     >>         Some considerations are:
     > > >     >>
     > > >     >>         - Name management: Neither the operator nor the
     > > implementation
     > > > wants to deal with the artificial name, whether it is hardcoded,
     > > user-configured,
     > > > or system-generated. When we implement such singleton protocol, we don't
     > > > save a name anywhere.
     > > >     >>         - The complexity of validation: The "when" statement is an
     > > > unnecessary expense to the user and to the implementation, especially if
     > > we
     > > > need to check all instances.
     > > >     >>         - Data tree query: If the singleton "MSDP" is mixed with
     > > other protocol
     > > > instances, it is less obvious or harder to search for. Depending on the
     > > > implementation, it would be worse if the entire list needs to be
     > > iterated.
     > > >     >>         - Tree hierarchy  organization: I don't see too big a
     > > problem with "all
     > > > single-instance protocols under /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
     > > and all
     > > > the multi-instance ones under /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-
     > > protocols/rt:control-
     > > > plane-protocol". If necessary, some of the names can be adjusted.
     > > >     >>
     > > >     >>         Thanks,
     > > >     >>         - Xufeng
     > > >     >>
     > > >     >>
     > > >     >>         > -----Original Message-----
     > > >     >>         > From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
     > > ]
     > > >     >>         > Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 9:41 AM
     > > >     >>         > To: Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Martin Bjorklund
     > > <mbj@tail-
     > > > f.com<http://f.com>>;
     > > >     >>         > Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > > >     >>         > Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
     > > Xufeng Liu
     > > >     >>         > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > > >     >>         > Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have
     > > single control-
     > > > plane-
     > > >     >>         > protocol instance
     > > >     >>         >
     > > >     >>         > Thanks for the suggestions. I agree that hard-coding
     > > the name is a
     > > > bad idea,
     > > >     >>         > glad that a cleaner way of doing this is possible.
     > > >     >>         > - We can move the must statement up to restrict max of
     > > 1 control-
     > > > plane-
     > > >     >>         > protocol instance of type msdp?
     > > >     >>         > - Acee/Lada, should a note be added to section 5.3 of
     > > 8022bis
     > > > regarding how
     > > >     >>         > to enforce single instance? How much of a concern is the
     > > > performance
     > > >     >>         > impact in this specific case?
     > > >     >>         >
     > > >     >>         > Regards,
     > > >     >>         > Reshad.
     > > >     >>         >
     > > >     >>         > On 2018-02-08, 7:02 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <
     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
     > > >     >>         >
     > > >     >>         >     On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 12:39 +0100, Martin Bjorklund
     > > wrote:
     > > >     >>         >     > "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
     > > >     >>         >     > > Hi Lada,
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > > On 2/8/18, 4:42 AM, "yang-doctors on behalf of
     > > Ladislav
     > > > Lhotka"
     > > >     >>         > <yang-docto
     > > >     >>         >     > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > > wrote:
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 09:20 +0100, Martin
     > > Bjorklund wrote:
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > Hi,
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <
     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > Hi YDs,
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > MSDP YANG authors want to enforce
     > > single-instance of
     > > > MSDP
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > control-plane protocol. The when
     > > “rt:type =
     > > > ‘msdp’“ allows
     > > >     >>         > multiple
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > control-pane-protocol instances as long
     > > as they have
     > > > different
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > rt:name. The only workaround I thought
     > > of is to have a
     > > > when
     > > >     >>         >     > statement
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > on the name in the top level container..
     > > This would still
     > > > multiple
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > control-plane-protocol instance of type
     > > msdp but
     > > > restricts the
     > > >     >>         > name
     > > >     >>         >     > to
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > a fixed name (msdp-protocol in this
     > > case) for the top level
     > > > msdp
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > container to exist. Any suggestions on
     > > how to do this
     > > > better?
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > Hard-coding a name like this is IMO a bad
     > > idea.
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > Better would be to simply state in text
     > > that there MUST
     > > > only be one
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > instance of this type.
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > But you can also add a must statement
     > > that enforces this:
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >    augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-
     > > protocols/"
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >          + "rt:control-plane-protocol" {
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >       when 'derived-from-or-self(rt:type,
     > > "msdp:msdp"'  {
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >      container msdp {
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >        must 'count(/rt:routing/rt:control-
     > > plane-protocols/'
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >           + '
     > > rt:control-plane-protocol['
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >           + '
     > > derived-from-or-sel(../rt:type, "msdp:msdp")])
     > > > <=
     > > >     >>         >     > 1'";
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > In general, you should be careful with
     > > the usage of "count",
     > > > since it
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > will loop through *all* instances in the
     > > list every time.  If
     > > > the list
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > is big, this can have a performance
     > > impact.
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     Instead of count(), it is possible to use
     > > the so-called
     > > > Muenchian
     > > >     >>         >     > method:
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >         container msdp {
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >           must "not(../preceding-sibling::rt:
     > > control-plane-
     > > > protocol["
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >              + "derived-from-or-self(rt:type,
     > > 'msdp:msdp')])";
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >           ..
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >         }
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     It basically states that the
     > > control-plane-protocol containing
     > > > the
     > > >     >>         >     > "msdp"
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     container must not be preceded with a
     > > control-plane-
     > > > protocol entry
     > > >     >>         > of
     > > >     >>         >     > the
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     msdp:msdp type (or derived).
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > > This looks like an elegant solution.
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > "elegant" as in "less obvious" ;)  It has the
     > > same time complexity
     > > > as
     > > >     >>         >     > the count() solution.
     > > >     >>         >
     > > >     >>         >     It should be faster on the average - it has to scan
     > > only preceding
     > > > siblings of
     > > >     >>         >     the MSDP protocol instance whereas count() always
     > > has to check
     > > > *all*
     > > >     >>         > protocol
     > > >     >>         >     instances.
     > > >     >>         >
     > > >     >>         >     It is true though that in XSLT this technique can
     > > be made
     > > > considerably
     > > >     >>         > more
     > > >     >>         >     efficient by using indexed keys.
     > > >     >>         >
     > > >     >>         >     Lada
     > > >     >>         >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > However, since the key for the
     > > control-plane-protocol  list is
     > > > "type
     > > >     >>         >     > name", won't it only work if the previous sibling
     > > has a  "name"
     > > > that
     > > >     >>         >     > is precedes the one being added?
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > For each list entry that has this container, the
     > > expression is
     > > >     >>         >     > evaluated.  It will scan all preceding entries
     > > and ensure that there
     > > >     >>         >     > are none with this type.  So the order of the
     > > entries doesn't
     > > > matter;
     > > >     >>         >     > if there are two with the same type, one of them
     > > has to be
     > > > before the
     > > >     >>         >     > other.
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > /martin
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > > Thanks,
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > > Acee
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     Lada
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > Also note that I use derived-from-or-self
     > > instead of equality
     > > > for the
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > identity.
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > /martin
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > Regards,
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > Reshad.
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >   augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-
     > > protocols/"
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >         + "rt:control-plane-protocol" {
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >      when "rt:type = ‘msdp’"  {
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >       description
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >         "….”;
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >     }
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >     description "….";
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >     container msdp {
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >       when "../rt:name =
     > > ‘msdp-protocol’"  {
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >         description
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >           "….";
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >       }
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >       description "MSDP top level
     > > container.";
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <
     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > Date: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:25
     > > PM
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > To: Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
     > > >     >>         > "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <
     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
     > > > "Mahesh
     > > >     >>         > Sivakumar
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > (masivaku)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
     > > > "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
     > > > "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
     > > > "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "
     > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
     > > "tanmoy.kundu@alcatel-
     > > >     >>         > lucent.com<http://lucent.com>"
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
     > > >     >>         > "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Acee
     > > Lindem (acee)"
     > > >     >>         > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > Subject: Re: Hi all, about the
     > > modification of MSDP YANG
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > Hi Sandy and Xufeng,
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > I understand that you want only 1 MSDP
     > > instance but I
     > > > don’t think
     > > >     >>         >     > that
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > justifies /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols.
     > > If we do
     > > > that we
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > will end up with all single-instance
     > > protocols under
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
     > > and all the multi-
     > > > instance
     > > >     >>         >     > ones
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > under
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-
     > > protocols/rt:control-plane-
     > > > protocol.
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > I am not sure what’s the best way to
     > > enforce single-
     > > > instance, I can
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > check with the other YDs on this topic..
     > > One way it can be
     > > > done is
     > > >     >>         > as
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > follows (I’ve added the when statement
     > > in bold to
     > > > existing BFD
     > > >     >>         >     > model),
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > it enforces that the protocol name is
     > > ‘bfdv1’. So multiple
     > > >     >>         > instances
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > with rt:type=bfd-types:bfdv1 could be
     > > created, but only
     > > > one of
     > > >     >>         > these
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > instances can have the bfd container.
     > > This is probably not
     > > > the
     > > >     >>         > best
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > way but the point is that IMO protocols
     > > have to go under
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-
     > > protocols/rt:control-plane-
     > > > protocol.
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > Regards,
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > > Reshad.
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >   augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-
     > > protocols/"
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >         + "rt:control-plane-protocol" {
     > > >     >>         >     >
     > > >     >>         >     > >     > >      when "rt:type =