Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04
Alexander L Clemm <ludwig@clemm.org> Fri, 18 September 2020 19:42 UTC
Return-Path: <ludwig@clemm.org>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F0EC3A0CF4; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 wQoGAkWF3Tba; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) (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 D72073A07F2; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.0.44] ([73.189.160.186]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus004 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MTisb-1jtsGV3Pjx-00TzFI; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 21:42:27 +0200
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
Cc: "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff.all@ietf.org>
References: <159942490640.25028.10946254095755778899@ietfa.amsl.com> <EF21460A-8689-491C-AE19-942C6FA84FFC@cisco.com> <e801c95e-078e-8438-b1a0-18aaf4be3a82@clemm.org> <8759A9BF-300C-46F7-B39F-9EF4CFA2D726@cisco.com> <22126972-0920-1bb3-a73f-f4a219a59bf6@clemm.org> <0E3A16A2-6ABA-4868-936F-AA6C9AAF3A8E@cisco.com>
From: Alexander L Clemm <ludwig@clemm.org>
Message-ID: <7cf5120e-28c9-383a-5238-0d6749e93854@clemm.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:42:25 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0E3A16A2-6ABA-4868-936F-AA6C9AAF3A8E@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------A848C0F38A0E06E879280179"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:fhThEQlhJG0oxwtk+pijyByX2lucLGR6xaBX0QV/SN41YOq+T6j raoV7U8Jo/Y8PUvkh8do0MCNll/rx+7V4fmkifnoNb+0J7qKVPrZn9DJGqyMZfiifDa1K43 DB3MallC4mVh+PrvmLLbAWiM01JaLyfoTNe1Zk7d8Q0XnUpVdDmAw0iMcZDJABp6VH0DT1Z TGEuy0RoRAUwW1gRCFotQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:47vvpk98Qtw=:tQY60kVRhxR81m3llUf1WZ Yid1OL0zHY2tlawM7R2pye5Ji2IAQt1+NP+wshiN460wdiUTCJj0yta2i3pH1hZCXaQnno4xC vf1kCfc1fUOiCrnHDqCx2BeT1M30RSXyTRoaUW9mn2DBw/kMq5FqYgRjyojp0A0LzT3rn0pns 4olLtM5NyCnC0rLLayTcen4Xx1P/nMygR9sVWYtJFxfuk9wo3Wfkn6xUu3o4ZJmZD+TvRtC6D nALURfNW/S4+ywB/CjPVKosi+ckgJZtPvYpNOLYbISrCv9FhDCwcaFYpfdiLZnkP4ddnWBOK9 RLlYMsSLcsFQeNwWzxS+F0urg3+/mMbQBB4+dhQBB0m8MErm/0OB0HhKPwdyxiRb/8gqsRdpa /HVxdg21pQCMGeb1DVgWqYCSlEkexruDQ5w2qeTAjD2XkeCgtgrOyyoF9/sRbxVHXTXBpq8fG 9SlULaaAepGKfm7nLrqAfVWCiETzF09qFi9uzAhaqqbHj5ygtYkP0c/aB7V6uhoQovPDnheBK nLMD+NkEzUS9GWMnTgy2YsUS68uNRN7OgT9DyC/R48pAFnMDWxut0CYcWs7htuYhJ2EdqtNkw fKCBvYpBYIj1R5A6x1UvCmtpq4zA94v3i2J7HmfiI5DEdI1iIsYbOCXud4Rn/sUMfpK9veIsh tSnqu0s3H2ySHoXnN/cNF+wRjDmJohiZko/tqS+Y8xfZ4IaLhaRs+49WZ19haHOlTs8yPtdor 3UOwofokYidH9S2zPpz35UVq9Gb9MAbImknbdmIwlE23ZLYuv1rstWAeVKw1gARefXra+sy/R 3qS0o1R6kbSHwHnjd4+L0u/C/bWgF0c6dcMH25QHFXEMhB0u5jZYtxsC6UuCdalyLRdklXJ
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/CiHmlyP1XEn920p6GswPVb0vgeU>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <yang-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/yang-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 19:42:32 -0000
Hi Reshad, okay, so let's add the following then to section 4, in the explanation of the "differences" output parameter: "When a datastore node in the source of the comparison is not present in the target of the comparison, this can be indicated either as a "delete" or as a "remove" in the patch as there is no differentiation between those operations for the purposes of the comparison. " And update the description as follows: container differences { description "The list of differences, encoded per RFC8072 with an augmentation to include source values where applicable. When a datastore node in the source is not present in the target, this can be indicated either as a 'delete' or as a 'remove' as there is no difference between them for the purposes of the comparison."; ... I will post this in a -06 shortly. Please let us know if this addresses your concerns or if there is anything else. Thanks! --- Alex On 9/18/2020 5:57 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > > > I think the only “problem” with using both “remove” and “delete” is > that it could be confusing (when should one be used and not the > other). Adding some text to say they’re the same for the diff > operation is good enough for me. > > > > Regards, > > Reshad. > > > > *From: *Alexander L Clemm <ludwig@clemm.org> > *Date: *Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 7:31 PM > *To: *"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, > "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org> > *Cc: *"last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" > <netmod@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff.all@ietf.org" > <draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff.all@ietf.org> > *Subject: *Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call review of > draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04 > > > > Hi Reshad, > > re: question 1: As you indicate, there may be no distinction between > indicating a "remove" or a "delete" in the patch. Right now it would > be acceptable to return either. If we want to eliminate this freedom, > which one would you prefer be used? Shall we remove the possibility > for "delete" and just cover it using "remove"? > > Note that the place where this is specified in the model is as part of > a condition that specifies when the source value should be included. > If we want to rule out that diff can return either "remove" or > "delete" (indeed they are synonymous), we would need to add text to > the container description that when a data object is present in the > target of the comparison but not the source, that "remove" should be > used to indicate that. > > The model would be changed follows. Please confirm if this looks good > to you & we'll incorporate it. > > OLD > > container differences { > description > "The list of differences, encoded per RFC8072 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8072> with an > augmentation to include source values where > applicable."; > uses ypatch:yang-patch { > augment "yang-patch/edit" { > description > "Provide the value of the source of the patch, > respectively of the comparison, in addition to > the target value, where applicable."; > anydata source-value { > when "../operation = 'delete'" > + "or ../operation = 'merge'" > + "or ../operation = 'move'" > + "or ../operation = 'replace'" > + "or ../operation = 'remove'"; > description > "The anydata 'value' is only used for 'delete', > 'move', 'merge', 'replace', and 'remove' > operations."; > } > reference "RFC 8072 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8072>: YANG Patch Media Type"; > } > } > } > > > > NEW: > > container differences { > description > "The list of differences, encoded per RFC8072 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8072> with an > augmentation to include source values where > applicable. Where a difference include a data object > in the target that is not present in the source, > this shall be indicated as a 'remove' operation > in the patch, not as a 'delete' operation."; > uses ypatch:yang-patch { > augment "yang-patch/edit" { > description > "Provide the value of the source of the patch, > respectively of the comparison, in addition to > the target value, where applicable."; > anydata source-value { > when "../operation = 'merge'" > + "or ../operation = 'move'" > + "or ../operation = 'replace'" > + "or ../operation = 'remove'"; > description > "The anydata 'value' is only used for 'merge', > 'move','replace', and 'remove' operations."; > } > reference "RFC 8072 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8072>: YANG Patch Media Type"; > } > } > } > > > > Thanks > > --- Alex > > > > On 9/15/2020 4:04 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > > > I will review the latest version. > > > > See below for questions/responses. > > > > On 2020-09-15, 5:19 PM, "yang-doctors on behalf of Alexander L Clemm" <yang-doctors-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ludwig@clemm.org> <mailto:yang-doctors-bounces@ietf.orgonbehalfofludwig@clemm.org> wrote: > > > > Hello Reshad, hello YANG Doctors, > > > > thank you for your review! Please find my replies inline, <ALEX>. We > > have also just posted -05 (thanks, Yingzhen, for doublechecking my > > updates). > > > > --- Alex on behalf of coauthors > > > > On 9/7/2020 7:06 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote: > > > <Here's the same message with hopefully more readable formatting> > > > > > > Review of rev -04 by Reshad Rahman > > > > > > The document is clear and well-written. While some issues have been identified, they can be resolved quickly. > > > > > <snip> > > > > > Questions > > > 1. YANG model: does the operation “delete” make sense for a diff operation? If it is kept, it’d be good to have some text explaining that for a diff operation, “delete” and “replace” are the same? If they’re not the same, please also add some text…. > > <RR> I actually meant "delete" and "remove". > > <ALEX> Here we are simply referring to the basic YANG-patch edit > > operations per https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8072#page-11. Those are > > in turn derived from <edit-config> operations per > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6241#page-37. I am not sure we need add > > to explain those, as we are directly referring to YANG-patch. > > > > </ALEX> > > <RR> The operations are indeed well defined in RFC8072 (copied below), but they are defined from the perspective of YANG-Patch. So for YANG-Patch "delete" and "remove" are different operations, but from a diff comparison I believe they are the same (the resource must exist since it's being returned in a diff) > > > > +-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > > | delete | delete a data resource if it already exists; if it | > > | | does not exist, return an error | > > | | | > > | remove | remove a data resource if it already exists | > > +-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ > > > > > 3. YANG model P9, for the “uses path:yang-patch”, why not have a reference to RFC8072 (is it because the description above mentions RFC8072)? > > <ALEX> We are clearly referencing RFC 8072; are you suggesting to put a > > reference substatement below the uses statement? It looks a little > > strange to me but sure, we will add it. > > <RR> Not needed. > > > > > 4. Section 7 mentions rate limiting requests per client. Should there be a “global” rate-limiting too, i.e not client-specific? > > > > <ALEX> I am not sure this is really needed as I think the number of > > management clients will in general be fairly limited to begin with, but > > we can certainly add it. How about the following text: > > > > OLD: > > > > One possibility for an implementation to mitigate against such a > > possibility is to limit the number of requests that is served to a > > client in any one time interval, rejecting requests made at a higher > > frequency than the implementation can reasonably sustain. > > > > NEW: > > > > One possibility for an implementation to mitigate against such a > > possibility is to limit the number of requests that is served to a > > client, or to any number of clients, in any one time interval, rejecting > > requests made at a higher frequency than the implementation can > > reasonably sustain. > > <RR> Good with me. > > > > </ALEX> > > > > > 5. Wondering if section 8 should be in an Appendix (or even removed)? Also, the method suggested doesn’t seem to guarantee that the difference persisted for the “dampening” time. > > > > <ALEX> Personally, I do think it makes sense to include a brief > > discussion of possible further extensions. I suggest to keep the > > section if it's okay with you, or perhaps leave it to the chair whether > > they have a preference to remove it. > > > > </ALEX> > > <RR>Whatever the WG/chairs decide is fine with me. > > > > Regards, > > Reshad. > > > > >
- [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of dr… Reshad Rahman via Datatracker
- Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review o… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call… Alexander L Clemm
- Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call… Alexander L Clemm
- Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call… Alexander L Clemm
- Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call… Alexander L Clemm
- Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call… Yingzhen Qu
- Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call… Yingzhen Qu
- Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call… Yingzhen Qu
- Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call… Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call… Alexander Clemm