Lada, Y34 is closed and I have not seen any new argument here that indicates we made a major mistake with the resolution of Y34. As such, Y34 remains closed.
If you want to discuss new ideas to relocate or "symlink" data models, please do so in a separate thread. (And no, we do not accept new issues for YANG 1.1 either at this point in time.) /js On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 07:42:49PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 20 Jul 2015, at 19:29, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > > > On 20 Jul 2015, at 17:00, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > > > > > On 20 Jul 2015, at 14:55, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Can you explain why we need 2 broken anyxmls? > > > > (The original and a synonym?) The whole point of > > > > anydata is that it does not have XML cruft in it. > > > > > > Yes, I understand this was your main priority. For implementors using > > > off-the-shelf XML parsers and tools the XML cruft is not an issue at all. > > > > > > > > > yes it is an issue. > > > We need something to model a container full of arbitrary YANG data nodes. > > > This is something that can be applied to the contents of a datastore. > > > > anyxml can do that, too. > > > > > > the WG already decided it can't. > > The extra XML PIs, etc. are not accepted by all servers, remember? > > There is no use for the extra stuff in the datastore. > > I don't see why we need 2 anyxml constructs that are not > > supported by the industry. One is already too many. > > I agree, but this is what we are going to have. My proposal was to have just > one with two different names. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I believe there are use cases for arbitrary XML/JSON/CBOR/… with > > > no (YANG) schema available. My only complaint to “anyxml” has always been > > > that it is a misnomer for encodings other than XML. > > > > > > The message encoding on the wire is not the same issue > > > as the contents of a datastore. Our server stores its own > > > internal data structures. XML, JSON, CBOR are just message > > > encoding formats between client and server. The datastore > > > is not encoded in any of these formats. > > > > The payload of anyxml needn’t directly map to a data subtree in the usual > > sense. > > > > that's precisely the difference between anyxml and anydata. > > The anydata node MUST map directly into data subtrees. > > If the server doesn’t know the YANG data model at run time (which is > possible) then it cannot do it - for instance, it cannot properly map module > names to namespace URI or handle lists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also don't get the value of a single top-level node called 'device' > > > > that every YANG model on the planet is supposed to augment. > > > > Can you explain why a protocol operation to retrieve the > > > > document root (/) is not sufficient for the top-level node? > > > > > > I don’t intend to defend their model, the more serious problem IMO is > > > that a model for a single device/function may be needed in another device > > > that hosts many virtualised devices/functions of the former type. We > > > don’t have a good solution for this rather typical situation. > > > > > > But a single container called "whatever" provides no such aggregation. > > > You would need a list for that. And the NMS might have multiple > > > layers of hierarchy to represent various aggregations. The NP > > > container called "device" is not helpful for aggregation. > > > > The parent node can be a list as well. The “root” node would be like a > > mount point in a Unix filesystem. > > > > > > Are you saying all data on a device needs to be in a top-level list called > > 'device' > > because an NMS might exist that wants to have the datastores from lots of > > devices? > > As Martin pointed out several times, the NMS can make its own container or > > lists. It does not need the device to mirror its own structure. > > As I said, I don’t care that much about the “device” container. What would be > really useful is to have the possibility to do e.g. this: > > virtual-node* [name] > name > if:interfaces > ... > > to support the use case where all virtual nodes are managed by the same > NETCONF/RESTCONF server. > > Lada > > > > > > > > > Lada > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lada > > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 20 Jul 2015, at 14:45, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > after listening to the presentation of > > > > > draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00 at RTGWG session, I am wondering > > > > > whether the solution chosen for Y34 is really useful. > > > > > > > > > > The draft states they want to reuse ietf-interfaces but their tree in > > > > > fact is > > > > > > > > > > +--rw device > > > > > +--rw info > > > > > | +--rw device-type? enumeration > > > > > +--rw hardware > > > > > +--rw interfaces > > > > > | +--rw interface* [name] > > > > > | ... > > > > > +--rw qos > > > > > > > > > > So the "interfaces" container is no more a top-level node. There are > > > > > three possible options: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Change the ietf-interfaces module. > > > > > 2. Replicate its contents in another module. > > > > > 3. Extend YANG so that a *specific* schema tree can be grafted at a > > > > > given data node. > > > > > > > > > > IMO #1 & #2 are really bad. I thought Y34-04 was essentially #3 but it > > > > > seems it is not so because it doesn't specify a concrete data model > > > > > that's allowed at a given location. > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, the only real contribution of "anydata" over > > > > > "anyxml" > > > > > is that is doesn't permit mixed content in XML, which is IMO not much. > > > > > > > > > > I know Y34 was already closed but I think it is more important to do > > > > > things right before YANG 1.1 becomes an RFC. > > > > > > > > > > What I want to propose is this: > > > > > > > > > > - Rename "anydata" as a synonym to "anyxml", and deprecate "anyxml" > > > > > (but > > > > > keep it for backward compatibility). > > > > > > > > s/Rename/Introduce/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Introduce a new statement and data node type, e.g. "root", that will > > > > > extend the schema tree starting from that data node with a precisely > > > > > specified data model. The specification can be same or similar as > > > > > in yang-library. > > > > > > > > > > I believe there are other use cases in the existing modules. For > > > > > example, the ietf-routing module could simply define the data model > > > > > for > > > > > a single routing instance (i.e. without "routing-instance" list at the > > > > > top), and it can be then used without changes on simple devices, and > > > > > more complex router implementations can graft it as a subtree under > > > > > "routing-instance", "networking-instance" or whatever. > > > > > > > > > > Lada > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > > > > > PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > netmod mailing list > > > > > netmod@ietf.org > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > > > > PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > netmod mailing list > > > > netmod@ietf.org > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > > > PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > > PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > netmod@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
