Hi Balazs, Andy, Netmod,
Sorry for the delayed response. I would still like to strength the description
of the defaults. E.g., RFC 6243 uses MUSTs rather than SHOULDs.
Hence, I have generated some proposed alternative descriptions, that are
somewhat stricter, but also more generically focussed only on the default
values.
With these definitions, I think that we could define the “include-defaults”
default value to be “explicit”, since if the leaf if not included, then I think
that this effectively what the meaning would be anyway.
In particular, I would propose changing the descriptions as follows:
leaf includes-defaults {
type enumeration {
enum report-all {
value 1;
description
"All data nodes SHOULD be included independent of
any default values.";
}
enum trim {
value 2;
description
"Data nodes that have a default defined and where
the actual value is the default value SHOULD
NOT be included.";
}
enum explicit {
value 3;
description
"Data nodes that have a default defined and where
the actual value is the default value SHOULD NOT be
included. However, if the actual value was set by
a NETCONF client or other management application
by the way of an explicit management operation the
data node SHOULD be included.";
}
}
Proposed:
leaf includes-defaults {
type enumeration {
enum report-all {
value 1;
description
"The instance data set includes all data nodes,
including those that contain the schema default.”;
}
enum trim {
value 2;
description
"The instance data set excludes all data nodes
that contain the schema default.";
}
enum explicit {
value 3;
description
"The instance data set may include some data nodes
that match the schema default and may exclude some
data nodes that match the schema default.”;
}
}
description
"This leaf provides an indication of how default data
is presented within an instance data set, modelled on
RFC 6243.
Interpretation of the use of defaults depends on the
context of what the instance data set represents.
E.g., if the instance data set represents configuration,
Then include-defaults aligns to the meaning of the
default-handling basic modes in RFC 6243. If the
instance data set represents operational data from the
operational state datastore [RFC 8342], then
include-defaults aligns to the definition of that
datastore in RFC 8342.”;
Would text along these lines work?
Thanks,
Rob
From: Balázs Lengyel <[email protected]>
Sent: 28 July 2021 23:08
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>; Andy Bierman <[email protected]>
Cc: NetMod WG <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf
Hello Rob,
Removing the “default trim;” will address Andy’s comment.
Your in-use-values is very specific to one of the use-cases:
reading/documenting operational values. It is not useful for the other
use-cases. I think the “documenting operational datastore” use-case could be
handled by indicating the includes-defaults=report-all. Case (i) would contain
the value case (ii) will not.
Regards Balazs
From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: 2021. július 27., kedd 17:38
To: Andy Bierman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Balázs
Lengyel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: NetMod WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf
Hi Andy, Balazs,
So, the reason that I want a flag to indicate whether default values are in use
is because of this definition of operational in RFC 8342:
Requests to retrieve nodes from <operational> always return the value
in use if the node exists, regardless of any default value specified
in the YANG module. If no value is returned for a given node, then
this implies that the node is not used by the device.
It was written this way because otherwise a consumer of operational data cannot
differentiate between:
(i) This value is not present because it matches the default
value specified in the YANG module, and
(ii) This value is not present because the server has failed to
return it for some reason (e.g., perhaps the daemon that would have provided
this value is down or not available, or perhaps it is a bug, or perhaps it is
not implemented and is a missing deviation).
So, I think that in some cases, the absence of a data node does not necessarily
mean that the default value is in effect, and I wanted the instance-data
document to be able to contain and correctly report this data.
I think that this behaviour could be captured by a single leaf. Another way of
articulating this would be:
leaf in-use-values {
type boolean;
default false;
description
“Only if set to true, the absence of a value in the
instance data for a given data node implies that the
node is not used rather than implicitly taking the
default value specified by any corresponding
‘default’ statement specified in the YANG schema.”;
}
With this, I’m not sure whether we need the “includes-default” leaf currently
specified in the draft, but if we do, then I would think that leaf should be
entirely optional, i.e., without the default “trim”.
Regards,
Rob
From: Andy Bierman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: 10 July 2021 17:41
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: NetMod WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Balázs Lengyel
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf
On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 5:23 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Andy,
Yes, when I suggested this, I was thinking that a boolean flag might be
sufficient. My point being that automatically filtering out default values
isn’t always the right thing to do.
The solution is simple.
Get rid of the inappropriate "default trim" statement.
If the leaf is present then it identifies the basic-mode that was used to
include defaults.
If not then the information is either not known, not applicable, or defaults
were not added.
The "default" statement is a bug because there is no default basic-mode.
All of the basic-modes are in use in deployments and no camp has ever
been able to convince the others that theirs is right.
Andy
E.g., something along these lines:
leaf exclude-defaults {
type boolean;
default true;
description
“Can be used to reduce the size of the content data file.
When unset or set to true, data nodes that have a default defined and
where the actual value is the default value are excluded from the content
data.
When set to false, data nodes with default value are not filtered, and
may appear in the content data.”
}
Would this satisfy your concern?
Regards,
Rob
From: netmod <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On
Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: 08 July 2021 18:16
To: NetMod WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [netmod] yang-instance-file include-defaults leaf
Hi,
The module has this object:
leaf includes-defaults {
type enumeration {
enum report-all {
value 1;
description
"All data nodes SHOULD be included independent of
any default values.";
}
enum trim {
value 2;
description
"Data nodes that have a default defined and where
the actual value is the default value SHOULD
NOT be included.";
}
enum explicit {
value 3;
description
"Data nodes that have a default defined and where
the actual value is the default value SHOULD NOT be
included. However, if the actual value was set by
a NETCONF client or other management application
by the way of an explicit management operation the
data node SHOULD be included.";
}
}
default trim;
The draft is extremely server-centric, like most IETF standards, but this
leaf is too server-centric to ignore.
Consider the possibility that the source of the file is NOT a NETCONF server.
This data may not be known so the default of "trim" may not be correct.
IMO this leaf is noise because any tool that knows the schema will also
know the YANG defaults. The solution is incomplete anyway because
the presence of a leaf that has a YANG default is not enough.
The "report-all-tagged" mode must be used to identify defaults.
IMO this leaf should be removed, but at least add an enum called "unknown".
Andy
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
