Hello, As Jurgen, Andy, Lada and Joe is opposed to defining the annotations in the instance model draft, and I don’t see it as crucial, I will take it out.
IMHO it is a useful bit of functionality for configuration data based use-cases, and I very much fear it will not happen at all now; unless people speak up it is removed. Regards Balazs From: Andy Bierman <[email protected]> Sent: 2019. július 23., kedd 11:39 To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]>; Balázs Lengyel <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [netmod] Instance-data-format - shall we define etag and last-modified annotation ? On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 7:24 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Balázs, I am not sure these belongs to the data types collection. If these annotations are a per datastore properties or per configuration datastore properties (I am not sure these properties make a lot of sense for dynamically changing data in <operational>, or these properties only make sense for config true nodes, more discussion needed I guess), then the logical place would be to define them would be where the datastores are defined. I understand the timing concern but my preference is to workout what these annotations really are in an NMDA world and in a second step to figure out a way to define them in a reasonable amount of time. This work needs a lot more thought because this WG is sort of abusing these fields, intended for HTTP caching. The values are associated with a representation of a response to a request for some portion of the datastore contents. E.g., a representation in XML must be a different ETag than a JSON representation (of the exact same datastore contents). I suggest new meta-data be defined that has semantics specific to datastore contents, not the HTTP representation of the response. IMO this meta-data is not really needed inside an instance file, but if included, then the values should be associated with the representation (the instance file) and not the datastores. /js Andy On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 02:11:23PM +0000, Balázs Lengyel wrote: > Hello Jürgen, > Could the etag and last-modified annotations be moved to 6991bis? > Regards Balazs > > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> > Sent: 2019. július 22., hétfő 16:15 > To: Balázs Lengyel <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [netmod] Instance-data-format - shall we define etag and > last-modified annotation ? > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 07:23:59PM +0000, Balázs Lengyel wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Restconf (rfc8040) defined to useful bits of metadata about a YANG > > defined > > datastore: entity-tag and the last-modified timestamp. > > > > These can be very useful in instance data sets, however Restconf > > defines an encoding for these (as part of the http headers) that can > > not be used in instance-data-sets. > > This may actually point out a flaw or omission of RFC 8527. RFC 8040 defines > an entity-tag for its "unified" datastore and it says "if the RESTCONF > server is co-located with a NETCONF server, then this entity-tag MUST be for > the "running" datastore". So it is a bit unclear what happens with other > NMDA datastores and I did not quickly find something in RFC 8527. (For > example, can have a distinct etag for <startup/>? > > > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-03#section-7.2 > > > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-03# > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-03> > > section-7.2> defines metadata annotations for these two, that can be > > used in instance data > > > > md:annotation entity-tag { > > type string; > > description "Used to encode the entity-tag ."; > > } > > md:annotation last-modified { > > type yang:date-and-time; > > description "Contains the date and time when the annotated > > instance was last modified (or created)."; > > } > > > > In order to be able to include this data, the annotations need to be > > defined in some YANG module. > > > > The question has been raised whether > > > > 1. these annotations should be defined in the ietf-yang-instance-data > > module as it needs them, as that is open or > > 2. the annotations should be defined in another draft in a separate > > YANG module as any other annotation > > > > The first option is better because the instance-data needs these > > annotations, and at this point we see no other user for the > > annotation, and in this case the ongoing instance data draft will > > define it > > > > The second option is better because, if later there are other users > > for these annotations, it might be strange to reference the > > ietf-yang-instance-data module. Also why provide special treatment to > > these > > 2 annotations? > > > > The authors support option 1 and don't have the time to start a new > > draft to define these annotations. > > > > On IETF105 in the room there was more support for option 1. > > > > Please indicate if you have an opinion about the choice of 1 or 2 > > Version -03 only defines these annotations but does not do anything specific > with these definitions. So if the annotations are defined elsewhere, the ID > is as complete as before. If entity-tag and last-modified are actually seen > as datastore properties, it would be nice to have them defined in the NMDA > documents (and it seems we overlooked this when we did the NMDA work). > > I think this needs a bit of discussion whether these are actually seen as > datastore properties. But in this case, I would lean towards option 2. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
