On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Randy Presuhn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi - > > Some lessons learned from annotating SMI files for code generation > are probably applicable here. > (1) doing annotations "in-line", regardless of the grammatical > tricks used to support those annotations, is problematic > from a software configuration management perspective. > (a) as new versions of the module definition appear, > it becomes necessary to "re-apply" annotations. > This is particularly a nuisance when different > organizations are involved. > (b) when the same module needs to be annotated in > different ways for different purposes, as when used > in multiple products built using different development > environments. > > This is why commercial SDKs support separate annotations, deviations, and module/submodule files. Ideally the module sources are common across all platforms, but annotations and deviations can be platform and revision specific. I understand the need for standard extensions like nacm:default-deny-all that are tied to a standard module, but not tool-specific annotations. (2) As others have already mentioned, working within the > language framework for annotation syntax is a big win > *if* you're doing annotations in-line, but see (1). > > YANG allows either inline or separate module (sort of) Side issue... We use the deviation statement to patch in extensions same as other deviations. That's why I do not like all the text in 7.20.3 about deviating from the standard and 'server does not implement faithfully'. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-14#section-7.20.3 The ABNF allows the following, so the RFC text is wrong: deviation /if:interfaces/if:interface { deviate add { ncx:sil-delete-children-first; } } This does not alter the conformance requirements at all. > Randy > Andy > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vinod Kumar > > Sent: Jul 1, 2016 6:21 AM > > To: Martin Bjorklund > > Cc: "[email protected]" , "Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)" , > Gaurav Agarwal , [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Request to review the YANG compiler annotations > draft. > > > > Dear Martin, > Thanks for your valuable comments. > Initially we also wanted to define them as individual extensions and > use them in the YANG file as indicated by you. > Below are some reasons, which compelled us to add them as a separate > annotations(metadata) in YANG file. > - These extensions are not required while defining the schema, it is > only required while implementing a schema in a server or client. It is used > by applications to instruct the YANG utilities or compilers to automate the > application development related to data organization / processing. - > These extension are of internal scope, and should be masked while server > advertises its schema resources. - These extension values for a given > YANG file may not match in server and client. > We felt that annotating is a good option, similar to other languages > where-in by looking at annotation itself utilities/compilers can perform > additional functionality as instructed. > As you have pointed out, it is not a valid YANG 1.0, so we can modify > it as extensions to be compatible. > We feel that annotation (compiler) support in YANG is an important > requirement which needs to be standardized for all compiler implementation, > hence we believe there is a need to incorporate annotations in YANG 2.0. > Looking forward for your opinion/feedback. > Thanks and Regards,Vinod Kumar S. > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote: > "vinods.kumar" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > > > We have written a draft, to add annotation in YANG definition which > can > > > be used by the YANG compilers. > > > > > > We are implementing these drafts as a reference implementation in the > IETF > > > 96 hackathon on ONOS YANG utilities. > > > > > > Request you to review the below drafts and provide your > comments/feedback. > > > > > > Draft(s): > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-agv-netmod-yang-compiler-metadata/ > > > > > > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-agv-netmod-yang-annotation-ds-and-der > > > ived/ > > > > I have looked at these drafts. I have two high-level comments. > > > > 1) What you propose is not valid YANG. This new syntax would > > require a new version of the YANG language. > > > > 2) What you propose is not necessary; it can be done (and is being > > done in several existing implementations) with current YANG > > syntax and semantics, with normal YANG extension statements. > > > > For example, the draft proposes this: > > > > list server { > > ca:compiler-annotation{ > > @MappedCollection(collection-type='map', map-key='name') > > @OverrideImpl('DefaultServer'); > > } > > ... > > > > It can be done today as: > > > > list server { > > xx:mapped-collection { > > xx:collection-type map; > > xx:map-key name; > > } > > xx:override-impl DefaultServer; > > ... > > > > > > /martin > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
