Hi,
To summarize this, I think we have three options for the three nodes
'model-name', 'mfg-name', and 'serial-num':
1. Do nothing (keep the nodes as config true).
2. Make these three nodes config false (fairly simple change).
(vendors can augment w/ their own config true nodes).
3. Add three new nodes for the configured values.
After thinking about this some more, and discussing with Benoit, I
think the best path forward is to do 2, i.e., mark the nodes
'model-name', 'mfg-name', and 'serial-num' as "config false". As such
they would not be configurable, and thus contain the detected values.
If no value is detected, the node is not present.
Note that 1 or 3 can be done in a future update to this module (or by
a vendor).
/martin
Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> "Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > --- snip ---
> >
> > > state.”, so the above sentence only applies for the second case below.
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> > > 2. The second case is that something is detected but it can’t be read.
> > > We do not see a reason to use the value configured for the leafs
> > > ‘serial-num’, ‘mfg-name’ and ‘model-name’ of a matching entry in the
> > > configuration data. These leafs are defined as optional so why would
> > > we report something entered by an operator in the operational
> > > datastore that intends to report on what is detected? Is it not
> > > better to not report them at all? In an NMDA context it would be
> > > possible to have a different value (or no value at all) for certain
> > > leafs while there is something in the running/intended datastore.
> >
> > The normal NMDA procedure for a configuration leaf is to repeat it in
> > operational state. This is then the "applied configuration".
> > I don't think we should have a special rule for these leafs.
> >
> > This also means that a client that just wants to read all the serial
> > numbers can do so from one place, the operational state, regardless of
> > how they came into existance.
> >
> > [Bogaert, Bart ]
> >
> > We do understand that a target of NMDA is to read out the actually
> > applied data in one request. But the result should not be
> > confusion. A key word is “applied”.
> >
> > Section 5.3 of draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-09 also contains
> > (I put a part of the section between ***):
> > The datastore schema for <operational> MUST be a superset of the
> > combined datastore schema used in all configuration datastores except
> > that configuration data nodes supported in a configuration datastore
> > ***MAY be omitted from <operational> if a server is not able to
> > accurately report them ***.
>
> Note that this text talks about the *schema*. It is intended for
> servers to migrate to NMDA without having to instrument all config
> nodes in <operational> immediately. If you apply this to
> ietf-hardware, it could be a server that implements the node
> "serial-num" in config, but not in <operational> (which would be
> weird).
>
> > For example, it is expected that the value of multiple leafs need to
> > be a consistent set, e.g. the mfg-name, the model-name, and the
> > serial-num.
> > Suppose we have a use case in which a hardware component is
> > planned/configured (e.g. a board supporting DSL interfaces) but a
> > different one is plugged (e.g. a board supporting ethernet
> > interfaces).
> > Suppose it is possible to read some fields on the detected component
> > but due to an issue not to read other fields.
> > If in that case the operational datastore will be completed with the
> > data taken from the running datastore, then the presented view might
> > be inconsistent.
>
> This is true for other similar nodes as well - "asset-id" and "uri".
>
> > The question is also: what data is applied? Our assumption: if there
> > is a mismatch between detected versus configured hardware, then the
> > interface/service related data that is configured consistently with
> > the planned hardware is not applied on the mismatching
> > hardware. I.e. the detected hardware is not brought in service so not
> > ‘applied’, the operational datastore only (accurately) reports on what
> > is detected.
>
> If there is a mismatch and the server doesn't apply the configured
> values, then obviously the configured 'mfg-name' etc are not copied to
> <operational>.
>
> > We do not see this as a special rule for this data but rather would
> > apply a general rule:
> > - if there is a ‘missing resource’, then the data is not reported in the
> > operational datastore.
> > - If the server is not able to report accurately, then the data is
> > omitted from the operational
>
> I think that if you want complete separation between the values of
> 'mfg-name', 'model-name', and 'serial-num' in configuration and
> operational state, then these should be modelled as separate leafs.
> We should have a config false leaf 'serial-num' that only contains the
> detected value (if found), and a config true leaf 'config-serial-num'
> or something, that contains the configured serial number.
>
> But if this is the case, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to leave
> such additional config objects to vendors, and simply make these three
> nodes config false in ietf-hardware.
>
>
> /martin
>
> >
> > Regards, Bart
> >
> > /martin
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Best regards, Bart
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: netmod [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert
> > > Wilton
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 4:14 PM
> > > To: Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06
> > >
> > > Hi Martin,
> > >
> > >
> > > On 21/12/2017 11:37, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I need WG input on this issue. The question is how to handle
> > > > 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name'. I think they should all
> > > > be treated the same. Based on previous WG discussion (see e.g. the
> > > > mail thread "draft-ietf-netmod-entity issue #13"), I think they
> > > > should all be configurable, but the configured value is only used in
> > > > operational state if the system cannot read it from the hardware.
> > > I think that this approach is probably OK:
> > > - The client can always see the real value if it is available.
> > > - If it is not available then they can assign a value via
> > > configuration.
> > >
> > > I was also considering an alternative approach of having a separate
> > > set of config false leaves for the "burnt in values". And then having
> > > the configurable leaves always override the default operational
> > > values. E.g. similar to how an interface MAC address would expect to
> > > be handled.
> > >
> > > But one set of leaves is probably sufficient.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Rob
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So I suggest the following changes:
> > > >
> > > > OLD:
> > > >
> > > > leaf serial-num {
> > > > type string;
> > > > config false;
> > > > description
> > > > "The vendor-specific serial number string for the
> > > > component. The preferred value is the serial number
> > > > string actually printed on the component itself (if
> > > > present).";
> > > > reference "RFC 6933: entPhysicalSerialNum";
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > NEW:
> > > >
> > > > leaf serial-num {
> > > > type string;
> > > > description
> > > > "The vendor-specific serial number string for the
> > > > component. The preferred value is the serial number
> > > > string actually printed on the component itself (if
> > > > present).
> > > >
> > > > This leaf can be configured. There are two use cases for
> > > > this; as a 'post-it' note if the server cannot determine
> > > > this value from the component, or when pre-provisioning a
> > > > component.
> > > >
> > > > If the server can determine the serial number from the
> > > > component, then that value is always used in operational
> > > > state, even if another value has been configured.";
> > > > reference "RFC 6933: entPhysicalSerialNum";
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > And corresponding text for 'mfg-name' and 'model-name'.
> > > >
> > > > And also:
> > > >
> > > > OLD:
> > > >
> > > > When the server detects a new hardware component, it
> > > > initializes a list entry in the operational state.
> > > >
> > > > If the server does not support configuration of hardware
> > > > components, list entries in the operational state are
> > > > initialized with values for all nodes as detected by the
> > > > implementation.
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise, the following procedure is followed:
> > > >
> > > > 1. If there is an entry in the /hardware/component list in
> > > > the intended configuration with values for the nodes
> > > > 'class', 'parent', 'parent-rel-pos' that are equal to
> > > > the detected values, then:
> > > >
> > > > 1a. If the configured entry has a value for 'mfg-name'
> > > > that is equal to the detected value, or if the
> > > > 'mfg-name' value cannot be detected, then the list
> > > > entry in the operational state is initialized with the
> > > > configured values for all configured nodes, including
> > > > the 'name'.
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise, the list entry in the operational state is
> > > > initialized with values for all nodes as detected by
> > > > the implementation. The implementation may raise an
> > > > alarm that informs about the 'mfg-name' mismatch
> > > > condition. How this is done is outside the scope of
> > > > this document.
> > > >
> > > > 1b. Otherwise (i.e., there is no matching configuration
> > > > entry), the list entry in the operational state is
> > > > initialized with values for all nodes as detected by
> > > > the implementation.
> > > >
> > > > If the /hardware/component list in the intended
> > > > configuration is modified, then the system MUST behave as if
> > > > it re-initializes itself, and follow the procedure in
> > > > (1).";
> > > >
> > > > NEW:
> > > >
> > > > When the server detects a new hardware component, it
> > > > initializes a list entry in the operational state.
> > > >
> > > > If the server does not support configuration of hardware
> > > > components, list entries in the operational state are
> > > > initialized with values for all nodes as detected by the
> > > > implementation.
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise, the following procedure is followed:
> > > >
> > > > 1. If there is an entry in the /hardware/component list in
> > > > the intended configuration with values for the nodes
> > > > 'class', 'parent', 'parent-rel-pos' that are equal to
> > > > the detected values, then the list entry in operational
> > > > state is initialized with the configured values,
> > > > including the 'name'. The leafs 'serial-num',
> > > > 'mfg-name', and 'model-name' are treated specially; see
> > > > their descriptions for details.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Otherwise (i.e., there is no matching configuration
> > > > entry), the list entry in the operational state is
> > > > initialized with values for all nodes as detected by
> > > > the implementation.
> > > >
> > > > If the /hardware/component list in the intended
> > > > configuration is modified, then the system MUST behave as if
> > > > it re-initializes itself, and follow the procedure in
> > > > (1).";
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > /martin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> On 12/20/2017 4:00 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > >>> Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >>>> Hi Martin,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks.
> > > >>>> Only kept the relevant excerpts.
> > > >>>>>> - Some objects are read-write in RFC6933:
> > > >>>>>> entPhysicalSerialNum
> > > >>>>>> entPhysicalAlias
> > > >>>>>> entPhysicalAssetID
> > > >>>>>> entPhysicalUris
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> For example, entPhysicalSerialNum being read-write always bothered
> > > >>>>>> me.
> > > >>>>>> serial-num is now "config false", which is a good news IMO.
> > > >>>>> Actually, this was not the intention. In
> > > >>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-entity-03 this is configurable. I missed this
> > > >>>>> in the conversion to NMDA.
> > > >>>> Ah. So no good news in this case...
> > > >>>>>> In the reverse direction, entPhysicalMfgName is read-only in
> > > >>>>>> RFC6933, while it's "config true" in draft-ietf-netmod-entity
> > > >>>>> Yes, this was added per request from the WG. See e.g. the
> > > >>>>> thread "draft-ietf-netmod-entity issue #13".
> > > >>>> Sure. It was mainly an observation.
> > > >>>>> However, I think that what we have now is probably not correct.
> > > >>>>> I think that all nodes 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name'
> > > >>>>> should be config true, and the description of list 'component'
> > > >>>>> updated to reflect that all these tree leafs are handled the same
> > > >>>>> way.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I would like to know what the WG thinks about this.
> > > >>>> Talking as a contributor this time.
> > > >>>> It seems that inventory management is kind of broken when someone
> > > >>>> can change 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name.
> > > >>> They can't really change them. The configured values are only
> > > >>> used (i.e. visible in the operational state) if the device cannot
> > > >>> detect them automatically. I.e., they work as "post-it" notes only.
> > > >> If I look at, for example, the mfg-name, description, this is not
> > > >> what it says.
> > > >>
> > > >> leaf mfg-name {
> > > >> type string;
> > > >> description
> > > >> "The name of the manufacturer of this physical component.
> > > >> The preferred value is the manufacturer name string
> > > >> actually printed on the component itself (if present).
> > > >>
> > > >> Note that comparisons between instances of the
> > > >> model-name,
> > > >> firmware-rev, software-rev, and the serial-num nodes are
> > > >> only meaningful amongst component with the same value of
> > > >> mfg-name.
> > > >>
> > > >> If the manufacturer name string associated with the
> > > >> physical component is unknown to the server, then this
> > > >> node is not instantiated.";
> > > >> reference "RFC 6933 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6933>:
> > > >> entPhysicalMfgName";
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards, Benoit
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> /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
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
