Re: [Yot] questions concerning sid value assignments

[peter van der Stok <[e-mail]>]

Hi Michel,

I understand.

What I have not completely reasoned through is the use of augment in 
test2 augment with grouping.
The SIDS of most of the voucher/leaves and the cwt-voucher/leaves are 
identical.
I wonder if that can lead to confusion when a server contains both 
cwt-vouchers and vouchers
Does the client need to check on the presence of the leaf 
"pinned-domain-subject-public-key-info" to know the answer?

I need to construct an example with a container containing both vouchers 
and a list of both vouchers.
Will do that next week.

Peter

Michel Veillette schreef op 2018-02-14 22:31:
> About " When two YANG identifiers are different the SIDs should be
> different, I think."
> 
> [I-D.ietf-core-sid] map a SID to a fully qualified path.
> The same leaf name or path defined in two different YANG modules will
> be map to two different SIDs.
> 
> For example:
>        {
>          "namespace": "data",
>          "identifier": "/ietf-system:system-state/platform/os-name",
>          "sid": 1726
>        },
> 
> Regards,
> Michel
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peter van der Stok [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 3:07 AM
> To: Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)
> <[e-mail]>; Michel Veillette
> <[e-mail]>; Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: questions concerning sid value assignments
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> This is a serious issue; Thinking about is, I changed my mind several 
> times.
> I have cc'ed Kent, hoping he can provide some assistance.
> 
> Actually, there is a one to one relation between SID value and YANG 
> identifier.
> The YANG identifier includes the module name and prefix, as specified
> in the SID I-D (did not check).
> When two YANG identifiers are different the SIDs should be different, I 
> think.
> Given that voucher and cwt-voucher have different module names, the
> YANG identifiers are different.
> Conclusion, the SIDs should be different For example, the SID of
> expires-on in the cwt-voucher module is different from the SID of
> expires-on in the voucher module.
> 
> What do you think? It seems to hold more water than the semantics 
> argument.
> 
> Peter
> 
> Michael Richardson schreef op 2018-02-13 20:50:
>> peter van der Stok <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>     > There are two ways to go forward:
>>     > 1) reuse as much as possible SID values generated for the 
>> voucher
>>     > identifiers in "used" versions
>> 
>> Are we talking about the SID value for "expires-on" would be the same
>> between an ietf-cwt-voucher-request and ietf-cwt-voucher, because both
>> are derived from the same ietf-voucher document?
>> 
>> I want to say that I can live with it either way. I prefer it to be
>> the same, because it makes coding easier, but I can cope.
>> 
>>     > 2) assume that reusing is OK, but the voucher identifiers can be
>> assigned
>>     > different SID values, because their semantics are different.
>> 
>> So that's the thing, it might be different in other situations, and
>> wouldn't want to screw things up down the road just to save a
>> definition in a
>> file.   Maybe different semantics are in fact a "do not" though.
>> 
>>     > Do you have an idea about that. Possibly you can explain how you
>> think that
>>     > the grouping should be used for different voucher versions and
>> if that
>>     > applies to the cwt-voucher.
>> 
>>     > As far as I understand, the semantics of identifiers of the
>> cwt-voucher are
>>     > identical to the ones of the original yang voucher 
>> specification.
>> In that
>>     > case the SID values should be identical as well (seems to me)
>> 
>> Agreed.
>> 
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-