Hello Shiya,
re your comment on the "Once models have been defined this way, they
cannot be altered after the fact": Well, I guess as William has pointed
out, it is possible to update a model with another, equivalent model
which pulls data node definitions into groupings and then uses those
groupings. That would be a compatible change. The same groupings will
then also be free for other models to use. However, even in that case,
an update to the original model is still required - you cannot simply
say "let me use these data definitions from that other models", they
need to be defined as a grouping (or per Jean's proposal in the draft,
you define a new construct that would let you "use" aka embed
definitions without the need for a grouping to be defined).
Cheers
--- Alex
On 8/1/2024 2:20 AM, Shiya Ashraf (Nokia) wrote:
Hi Alex,
"<AC> Correct, you cannot augment a grouping. However, you can define a second
grouping and then use both groupings. I do think that with properly designed modules that make
extensive use of groupings 99+% of reuse scenarios would be covered. "
<Shiya> Thanks for bringing this point up and I tend to fully agree here. In fact when I
was reading the schema mount RFC where it starts with the short comings of
"grouping", I also felt that there could be use-cases where some of these aspects of
the groupings can turn out to be its strengths. For eg: for cases where you need greater
control on what you want to embed on the mounted tree, for instance, only a selection of the
augments from the original module or add new augments only on the embedding context etc. So
though schema-mount/full-embed are very good solutions for reusability of existing YANG modules
for certain use-cases with its own advantages, for many cases the existing methods based on
groupings might do the job and in a much more simpler way.
But then you say: " Once models have been defined this way, they cannot be altered
after the fact."
<Shiya> Could you explain more on this? Technically, One can still define a new
grouping with all the data nodes that are today in a standard module and then
replaces the content of the standard module with a simple uses statement of the new
grouping with out causing a backward compatibility issue or any functional change,
can’t we ?
Thanks,
Shiya
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander L Clemm <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2024 12:37 AM
To: Jean Quilbeuf <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: [netmod] Re: Defining groupings after the fact?
draft-jouqui-netmod-yang-full-include and the reuse of definitions
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why
this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.
Hi Jean,
thank you - quick replies in line
--- Alex
On 7/30/2024 2:35 AM, Jean Quilbeuf wrote:
Hello Alexander,
I put some answers inline.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander L Clemm <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 8:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [netmod] Defining groupings after the fact?
draft-jouqui-netmod-yang- full-include and the reuse of definitions
Hello Jean, Benoit, Thomas,
After your presentation at IETF 120, I looked at your draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jouqui-netmod-yang-full-i
nclude-
02.
I do have some questions regarding what happens if the embedded
module is being augmented. Is the augmentation automatically
embedded as well; does such embedding need to be explicitly stated?
Is there a way to augment an embedded module only within the context of the
embedding module?
Yes, as per the example in the slides: if you want ietf-interfaces augmented by
ietf-ip, you have to embed them both.
<AC> I.e., you would need to augment the embedding module as well to embed the
augmentation. The aumentation of the embedding module would then include a new
"embed" statement to for the augmentation of the module that had been originally
embedded. Correct?
On a more general note, it strikes me that there is an increased need
in reusing definitions. In various forms, we see this in your use
cases, in network inventory use cases, in schema-mount, in
peer-mount. YANG does not provide good support for that, which is
somewhat ironic in that it does actually support several constructs
with reuse and extensibility in mind, from identities to groupings.
Hopefully the YANG-next effort will go a long ways towards improving
definition reuse to that the need for after-the-fact bandaids can be avoided.
Fully agree, the full embed as defined here should be a keyword in YANG-next.
Similar constructs exist in protobuf and json-schema for instance.
<AC> Cool. </ALEX>
When it comes to reusing parts of definitions, it seems that a lot of
grief could be avoided if portions that are to be reused would have
been defined as groupings, which could then be used wherever needed.
The problem is that the grouping construct is rarely used, so many
YANG definitions are not available for reuse that otherwise might be.
Grouping does not solve everything, you cannot augment a grouping so any
augmentation would have to be repeated for each use of the grouping.
I recommend reading the intro of RFC8528 YANG Schema Mount for a detailed
description of these reuse issues.
<AC> Correct, you cannot augment a grouping. However, you can define a second
grouping and then use both groupings. I do think that with properly designed modules that
make extensive use of groupings 99+% of reuse scenarios would be covered. The problem of
course that in general groupings are used only sparingly and in cases where the need for
reuse becomes obvious already within the same model. Once models have been defined this
way, they cannot be altered after the fact. That is one of the shortcomings in YANG today,
that it makes it easy to define models that are not as reusable as they should. </AC>
As a thought, it might be useful to introduce a construct that will
allow to define a _grouping_ after-the-fact, for later reuse. I.e.,
allow groupings to be defined in a way that the new grouping embeds
an existing definition, then simply make use of that grouping. That
would seem perhaps cleanest, able to address many of the use cases
and have the additional advantage that the semantics here will be very clear
since part of the exising YANG framework.
There is still the augment issue from above, we have it in
draft-ietf-opsawg-collected-data-manifest when reusing ietf-yang-push which
augments ietf-subscribed-notifications. All these augments have to be rewritten
with paths corresponding to the new location of the uses.
<AC> I don't think that would be an issue, actually. Just declare modular,
fine grained groupings and use those. Of course, this is somewhat a speculative
discussion as YANG is what it is and does not support this today. This discussion
probably belongs in YANG next.
Perhaps I'll put together some slides at some point to illustrate what I mean.
</AC>
I think the semantics for Schema Mount as defined in RFC8525 is the key to
reuse the full semantics of YANG (i.e. not only groupings but also
augmentations, rpcs ...) without having to modify existing modules.
What we propose in full embed is just to enable a simplified version of schema
mount, for design time.
Best,
Jean
<AC> Cheers, Alex </AC>
--- Alex
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email
to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
