Re: [tcpm] Comments for draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-00

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Thu, 05 November 2020 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B045E3A131A for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 07:30:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.319
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.319 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 Up-b3l3Y3r9K for <tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 07:30:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BD7C3A12DF for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 07:30:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=KSM62n5ZIVwRZwepsbDaU93a9/pBnAwhNAQ+zoDdaaw=; b=Ksz1ZH5ee8rpNGRyv2yjU0VQI ASnxgwKZS+1GTFDUuvSPTH9aVJe4Y2eQteO3QP/ridmOAUFborFUZeXITB8ja77+nHP0P9ewF1Y/P nJM73EOBW+N2arJ0+UMzOhi/aFXmK/QI5vebzojgljYOmJC0A7NNNtK9MNnEUBbvw0akAytpsk5MA U54A5r6EVxXpttDtgoRWqp4XIua55NYvASI/PKtjfLtvzAIHwQm/HulWEB7vsfzOgSQsBJZZ/umoq JpsnIu75Bi9WAEXqg/8ICdoNoyU85Loz4GxdUNNg8LW6M0gPakwepSZ/L0G3CHMve5bK1I6F7LbUq x0Q11LzqQ==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:61766 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1kahDt-002AIU-BM; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 10:30:54 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR07MB5784C86531CE986F91431D4CA2EE0@AM6PR07MB5784.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 07:30:48 -0800
Cc: Juhamatti Kuusisaari <juhamatk@gmail.com>, tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C90E5EDB-0532-4D01-A4DD-AEECC49FFDF9@strayalpha.com>
References: <CACS3ZpBJOfctZjW0qUD+2p1vw63p9KeJ+ie15SHE=k_fk6suTw@mail.gmail.com> <CACS3ZpD7dL=gbZd_mqA21+qX2nvKh7TDj3cx3xJvEUc_bnRZfg@mail.gmail.com> <EB42CDCE-2BF5-462D-8CBF-0589998AC883@gmail.com> <CACS3ZpCj+1XZC+RkQcGUaC90XcGBUF_OR_qor8V4Zn0nTSGrRg@mail.gmail.com> <340D363A-3C02-4A64-9DF4-A335B69CC87F@strayalpha.com> <AM6PR07MB5784C86531CE986F91431D4CA2EE0@AM6PR07MB5784.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/O_CeFOmizcAVPT4ycLlNqnGR4UE>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Comments for draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-00
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 15:30:57 -0000


> On Nov 5, 2020, at 3:04 AM, tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:
> 
> From: tcpm <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
> Sent: 04 November 2020 21:36
> Is there a convention in YANG for such situations?
> 
> I personally would not expect all values to have “default=true” or “on" everywhere. Sometimes you’re actively turning on something that is typically disabled (default=false or off).
> 
> I think the “include-tcp-options” matches the way it’s described in the doc (TCP option flag, where true implies includdd) and the default=true would match better.
> 
> <tp>
> From a YANG, rather than TCPM, perspective, I am not clear what you are asking.

The question is whether toggles are typically true by default or false by default. It doesn’t appear so.

>  In this case RFC5925 - which the leaf would benefit from as a reference to - seems clear to me
> 'by default including options'
> in which case I would expect the YANG to default true.
> I think it good practice to be explicit in any YANG description clause of a boolean as to what true means or false or ideally both).
> Also, I think the choice of 'include' in the leaf identifier unfortunate given that 'include' is a YANG technical term that appears in every YANG module.

It doesn’t need to be; the term could be “options-covered-by-MAC”, default=true

>  I know that it used in RFC5925 but still see it as unfortunate.

The YANG model and TCP-AO had overlapping development periods. It’s impossible to expect either to have taken the other completely into account.

Joe