Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 07/09/2017 11:15, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On 07/09/2017 11:05, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > >>> Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> On 07/09/2017 03:36, Andy Bierman wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Kent Watsen <[email protected] > >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >> /netconf-state and /restconf-state don't seem to follow the > >>>>> >> general > >>>>> >> pattern we're correcting with the various NMDA updates. > >>>>> Particularly, > >>>>> >> these -state trees are NOT for the purpose to providing the > >>>>> >> opstate > >>>>> >> value for configured nodes. These modules have the misfortune > >>>>> >> of > >>>>> >> having "-state" in their name, but they're otherwise fine. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > This contradicts some details we have been told about NMDA > >>>>> > > >>>>> > 1) the transition guidelines say otherwise > >>>>> > > >>>>> > New modules and modules that are not concerned with the > >>>>> > operational state of configuration information SHOULD > >>>>> > immediately be structured to be NMDA-compatible > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, I'm suggesting we give ourselves some leeway, by taking > >>>>> advantage of the SHOULD keyword above and defer updating these > >>>>> two modules to when it makes more sense to do so. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> OK -- good. > >>>>> I think another sentence needs to be added. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> NMDA compatibility conversion MAY be deferred if the module > >>>>> does not contain any configuration datastore objects. > >>>> I agree. > >>> +1 > >>> > >>> > >>>>> > 2) RD defines operational state to include config=false nodes > >>>>> > such as counters, so these modules are properly named. > >>>>> > >>>>> module-name == top-level node name. Either way, my point is that > >>>>> the -state tree in these modules is not trying to provide the > >>>>> opstate value for configured nodes (i.e. applied configuration). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> So a data node naming convention is needed? > >>>>> And a module naming convention? > >>>>> > >>>>> We need a rule that says the suffix "-state" is reserved for NMDA > >>>>> compatibility > >>>>> so module names and data nodes SHOULD NOT be named with an identifier > >>>>> that > >>>>> ends in this suffix. > >>>> Also agree. > >>> -1 > >>> > >>> There are cases where a -state suffix is natural, e.g. in > >>> ietf-hardware we have admin-state, oper-state, usage-state etc. > >>> > >>> I prefer to have a recommendation that generated modules and top-level > >>> nodes are called ...-state, but that should not be a reason for making > >>> -state illegal in general. > >> Sorry, it was specifically modules and top level data nodes that I > >> think this restriction should apply to. > > Even in this case I'd prefer to make a one-way recommendation. Is > > there a technical reason for not allowing a normal module or top-level > > node be called ...-state? IMO, *if* it is important to mark these > > modules as being generated, we should use a formal way to convey this > > information, not rely on a naming convention. (i.e., use a YANG > > extension in the module). > My logic is slightly different: > > I think that new top level containers shouldn't be called ...-state > because either > (i) they already contain config nodes, in which case they are > misnamed, or > (ii) they might be revised to contain config nodes in the future, in > which case they would end up being misnamed. > > I basically, think that the suffix "-state" doesn't generally provide > any useful extra information.
Sure. But there are many suffixes that don't generally provide useful extra information. I just think we should be careful with these kinds of rules. Bad names are hopefully catched during the review process. > Lower down the tree, I guess that using "state" or "*-state" is OK if > it can be known that the leaf/container will *always* only be state > and never potentially be configurable in future. But I still think > that it is necessary to be very careful here. > > For example, If I designed a new routing protocol, then in v1 there > might be no explicit neighbor configuration, and hence I put all of > the neighbor information into a container call > neighbor-state. However, if a v2 version of that protocol (or vendor > extensions) wants to add some per neighbor configuration then it would > hit the problem that the original container is poorly named to be > updated to now also hold configuration. So, generally avoiding > "-state" in the name of containers seems to be good common sense to > me. I agree. And avoid "*-config". /martin > I would suggest adding something to 6087bis, but my previous > suggested additions to 6087bis didn't appear to be well received ;-) _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
