Re: [YANG] default values

Balazs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com> Thu, 17 January 2008 08:54 UTC

Return-path: <yang-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFQVs-0004dr-SM; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:54:16 -0500
Received: from yang by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JFQVs-0004dl-E7 for yang-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:54:16 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFQVs-0004dd-46 for yang@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:54:16 -0500
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFQVq-0004dp-Cw for yang@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:54:16 -0500
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id C172720FF1; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:54:13 +0100 (CET)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-b06a2bb00000459d-df-478f17b5f056
Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 92ED221330; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:54:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.170]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:54:13 +0100
Received: from [159.107.197.224] ([159.107.197.224]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:54:13 +0100
Message-ID: <478F17B4.7060500@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:54:12 +0100
From: Balazs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070604)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@cesnet.cz>
Subject: Re: [YANG] default values
References: <1200478981.7029.27.camel@missotis> <20080116.123549.140000433.mbj@tail-f.com> <1200487153.7029.71.camel@missotis> <478E0FCD.6080908@andybierman.com> <1200493871.7029.137.camel@missotis> <478E1EF4.4050002@andybierman.com> <DCABA351-3933-4AED-A6E6-80C5F85E3F9C@jdscons.com> <1200501131.7029.151.camel@missotis> <49B89097-B9C1-44FE-A59E-FA12B2D546F2@jdscons.com> <1200556619.10666.16.camel@missotis>
In-Reply-To: <1200556619.10666.16.camel@missotis>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jan 2008 08:54:13.0161 (UTC) FILETIME=[883EF990:01C858E6]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3
Cc: yang@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: yang@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: YANG modeling Language for NETCONF <yang.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang>, <mailto:yang-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/yang>
List-Post: <mailto:yang@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang>, <mailto:yang-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: yang-bounces@ietf.org

Hello,
I think you are arguing about different things. As I understand your comments:
Statement 1) says: defaults are important, so if we do have an agreed default value, we should 
document it in a proper, formal way. (I fully support this.)
Statement 2) says: it is very difficult to agree on good default values so we should use 
extreme caution specifying "mandatory" defaults in standards. I can agree with that as well.
We can still to define recommended-only defaults in the description statement if the default is 
not obvious enough.

The two statements do not contradict each other in my view.

Also while it is difficult to define default values in standards, YANG and NETCONF will be used 
a lot to define proprietary data models as well. It is much easier to define defaults here, and 
yes we do want a formal definition of these defaults (actually we already have it in the 
Ericsson-DML.)

Balazs


Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Jon Saperia píše v St 16. 01. 2008 v 11:54 -0500:
> 
>> I understand your perspective but even  though I said what I said, if  
>> we were to go down this path, defaults can be helpful.  Any manager  
>> that attempts the configuration function will have to be pretty  
>> sophisticated because of the variability (even with standards) that  
>> will be sure to exist. That does not mean that they will not do bad  
>> things from time to time, but the market has a way of fixing things.
> 
> I am not against specifying defaults (reasonably), I only don't like the
> fact that changing a default value implies a different data model. I
> understand the data model primarily as a means for checking whether a
> given document is valid or not and default values are irrelevant in this
> respect. It is already difficult to standardise the knobs and default
> values are yet another level.
> 
> Lada
> 
>> /jon

-- 
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
TSP System Manager
ECN: 831 7320                        Fax: +36 1 4377792
Tel: +36-1-437-7320     email: Balazs.Lengyel@ericsson.com


_______________________________________________
YANG mailing list
YANG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang