Re: [yang-doctors] Small modules discussion from LSR [Fwd: [Lsr] When to augment LSR base YANG modules...]

"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> Tue, 02 April 2019 12:08 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
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 1C95B120187 for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 05:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 IAHFoEF4Wn4J for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 05:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AC531201AE for <yang-doctors@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 05:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7710; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1554206899; x=1555416499; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=7VwHrPOTCqj4xjZs9YOdWGNqLEfygB+trol11QFgnMI=; b=cdvsusO4rQMEovVhTB2hUlqBjEJ6cr2Msij+A0838UPjQRdLB/e47Isa ReAfkNBmv33BxTDnjP0YLhnec2rKb6+p3JzTya322PcZVZz5KNM2Ypi9h aTSFTK76Y/FKNk9cxecWEvXo07SRrivWsx3XIzZ/D4bkJ2qYFvdu5S18T Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AHAABYT6Nc/5JdJa1lGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUwIBAQEBAQsBgWYqgWsnCoQElVV+l0GBew4BAYRsAhe?= =?us-ascii?q?FJSI2Bw0BAQMBAQkBAwJtKIVKAQEBAQMjEUUMBAIBCA4DBAEBAQICHwcCAgI?= =?us-ascii?q?wFQgIAgQOBQgXhHmtV4Evij6BCyQBizIXgUA/gRGCFEk1PodOgjUiA40Ci32?= =?us-ascii?q?MVQkCk14igTxHiWiITYxekkQCERWBLiYCL4FWcBWDJ4JAbQEJjRRBMY86gR8?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,300,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="542461384"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 02 Apr 2019 12:08:17 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (xch-aln-008.cisco.com [173.36.7.18]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x32C8H2R014583 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 2 Apr 2019 12:08:17 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-007.cisco.com (173.37.102.17) by XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 07:08:16 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-007.cisco.com ([173.37.102.17]) by XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com ([173.37.102.17]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 07:08:17 -0500
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: "chopps@chopps.org" <chopps@chopps.org>, "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, "yingzhen.qu@huawei.com" <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [yang-doctors] Small modules discussion from LSR [Fwd: [Lsr] When to augment LSR base YANG modules...]
Thread-Index: AQHU6IgFXS0x43TD+0KJTYhFZUbFPKYooAdwgABhJgD//7YncIAAWfsA//+1g1A=
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 12:08:16 +0000
Message-ID: <058e56b07ab04c5ebe4b5abc6cc783c6@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com>
References: <c691b0e1a8c64b1c8a31070f0d600fc8@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com> <6974CC7A-9CC2-4621-A0C5-FBF2C3E34E4A@chopps.org> <2ef8571460974757ae611cf3c2cd834f@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com> <20190402.132904.1980573421805066732.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190402.132904.1980573421805066732.mbj@tail-f.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.63.23.177]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.18, xch-aln-008.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-10.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/lUGoNQxBfq6ihxR21yToTTo_qJk>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Small modules discussion from LSR [Fwd: [Lsr] When to augment LSR base YANG modules...]
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: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 12:08:22 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>;
> Sent: 02 April 2019 12:29
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>;
> Cc: chopps@chopps.org; yang-doctors@ietf.org; yingzhen.qu@huawei.com
> Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Small modules discussion from LSR [Fwd: [Lsr]
> When to augment LSR base YANG modules...]
> 
> "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>; wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>;
> > > Sent: 02 April 2019 11:31
> > > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>;
> > > Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>;; YANG Doctors <yang-
> > > doctors@ietf.org>;; Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>;
> > > Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Small modules discussion from LSR [Fwd:
> > > [Lsr]
> > > When to augment LSR base YANG modules...]
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Apr 2, 2019, at 5:52 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> > > > <rwilton@cisco.com>;
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Chris,
> > > >
> > > > I don’t think that there is a one size fits all answer here.
> > > >
> > > > If the enhancement is small, and is likely to be reasonably widely
> > > > used then
> > > my view is that adding it as an optional feature to the base module
> > > is a better choice in the long term.
> > > >
> > > > If the feature is larger, or esoteric, and perhaps won’t be widely
> > > > deployed
> > > then I would think that putting it into a separate module might be a
> > > better choice.
> > > >
> > > > I actually think that it is the IETF process that is perhaps the
> > > > difficult thing
> > > here.  I.e. I think that you want to republish a new revision of the
> > > base module, but in a way that gets processed more quickly by the
> > > IESG.
> > > E.g.
> > > request that they only review/comment on the diffs between the
> > > current revision and the previous one.  Or somehow publish an
> > > updated revision of the module on github without assigning it a new
> > > RFC number every time.
> > >
> > > Yes, although I'm trying to do a couple things:
> > >
> > > - Get YANG management support added at the same time as the
> > > functionality, not as an after thought maybe someday, maybe never.
> >
> > I agree that this is definitely the right thing to do.
> >
> >
> > > - Reduce the cost of adding the YANG support. A stand-alone document
> > > is very expensive time and effort wise, separate IESG reviews,
> > > directorate reviews, last-calls.
> >
> > I agree.  And rev'ing the base ISIS YANG model is likely to be just as
> > expensive.
> 
> My suggestion was not to rev the base model, but have _one_ model with
> these "optional features", and rev that every time.

[RW] I'm not sure I see the difference.

Whatever minimal base draft that does the includes has to be updated if a new include is added or changed.

Where would that updated base be published?  Would that be included in the extension RFC?

> 
> > > I had wondered if we could use errata on the base vs doing a brand
> > > new bis version of the base module; however, this seems to be
> > > trading too much process overhead with perhaps not quite enough.
> > >
> > > To the first goal, I wrote that reverse metric module a couple days
> > > ago as an example. I have to wonder when or even if it would have
> > > gotten written (or the equivalent feature added) otherwise. Instead
> > > I suspect it would just get added into N vendors models as people
> > > move on to other things in the WG.
> > >
> > > In a perfect world I would add a YANG section to my functionality
> > > RFC that updated (not augment) the base module, but with augment
> > > style definition (i.e., so the entire huge base module doesn't need
> > > to be re-represented in the document). This would then cause the
> > > base document to get reissued with the changes. Sort of like IANA
> > > sections are capable of updating a registry.
> >
> > We almost want to just include a diff/patch to the base model into the
> > document.  This is actually a little bit like how IEEE 802 update
> > their documents, and then they periodically roll their updates into
> > the base model.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > So maybe your github idea is like this, we create a module
> > > definition registry where the most up-to-date module definitions go,
> > > and then RFCs can update that using something like (or exactly like)
> > > augment to document the changes to the module in the individual
> > > RFCs.
> >
> > Yes.  We want the review to only focus on the stuff that is new/added
> > rather than reviewing the whole module every time.
> >
> > Martin's suggestion of using submodules is another way to achieve
> > this.  E.g. the actual module definition is split over multiple RFCs,
> > but I'm not that keen on submodules and I suspect that this will make
> > them hard to read in future.
> 
> Note that we can "gc" the submodules and fold their contents into the main
> module, or perhaps a "top" submodule, when you have N submodules.

True.

> 
> 
> > I think that the real answer here is that YANG modules should not be
> > published in RFCs.  Yes, they should go through a similar formal
> > review process for changes to the modules but without the overhead of
> > reviewing every change as a new document.
> 
> Right.  This is longer term though, since it requires a process update!

Yes.

But, if we think that this is the right long term plan perhaps we should be writing up a draft to propose this to see what the WG reaction is?

Thanks,
Rob


> 
> 
> /martin