Re: [Rats] do not address yang warnings by making nodes writable

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

Eric,

I think you want to configure that "this config applies to TPMs
version X", i.e., you configure the version that needs to match the
TPMs version so that your config can apply, you are of course not
configuring the TPM's version (that would require a TPM configuration
model but as you write, for many TPMs this will be by design not
configurable).

For network interfaces, we do the same: You write down the
configuration of a network interface and we expect that the
configuration only gets applied if a matching network interface is
actually present. (This is basically where the difference between
intended configuration and applied configuration comes into play.)

/js

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 04:35:32PM +0000, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:
> Hi Juergen, 
> 
> > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder, February 19, 2021 11:01 AM
> > 
> > I do not know what the purpose of the MUST statements is since I did not
> dig
> > deeper but it could be that config is only applied to TPMs where the
> configured
> > version matches the version of the TPM. This would then require to
> configure
> > the version, much like we allow to provision interface configs even if
> there is
> > (currently) no matching interfaces.
> >
> > It could also be that the WG does not want to allow something to be
> configured
> > for a TPM version that does (currently) not exist. Even in that case, you
> would
> > have to convey the TPM version as part of the config and then have logic
> > defined in description statements that such config snippets are to be
> rejected
> > (instead of being not applied).
> 
> This is closer to the purpose.  
> 
> The TPM is a hardware device* which will follow an API defined in another
> standards body.   The TPM has firmware which will not be configured through
> YANG model.  It is conceivable that new TPM firmware versions will be
> exposed, so ENUMs cannot be used.   It is this firmware version which will
> allow other relevant configuration operations to be applied.
> 
> So you cannot change the configuration datastore for this object (as it is
> read internally).   But you also can't make the object as "config false", as
> other configurable items depend on it.  If there is a proper way to document
> such a relationship, it would be great to update the model so that the
> relationship does not require the text currently in the description.   Any
> suggestions?
> 
> * There are also such things as Virtual TPMs.  This model is intending to
> frame YANG structures which can be reused should others want to build for
> these as well.   But that is out-of-scope here.
> 
> Thanks,
> Eric
> 
> > My point is that saying a leaf is rw config, it is expected to be used for
> > validation, but it is not expected to be there is not working.
> > 
> > Personally, I prefer config that can be provisioned but may not be applied
> if it
> > does not match the resources (currently) available.
> > Yes, this requires to check for possible differences between applied and
> > provisioned (aka running) config but the opposite gets you into situation
> where a
> > hardware component failures leads to an invalid config and you are either
> > bricked or in a mode hard to understand.
> > 
> > /js
> > 
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 09:36:40AM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> > >
> > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >     > I doubt that this is a proper solution as you now have to
> configure the
> > >     > tpm-firmware-version. If you cannot configure this (as the
> description
> > >     > says), then the MUST may always be false, i.e, once you implement
> this,
> > >     > you will see that this does not work.
> > >
> > > I am not clueful about XPATH forcing "rw"... is there another solution?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting
> )
> > >            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> > Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > RATS mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats



-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>