Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08.txt

[Joe Clarke (jclarke)]

> On Dec 5, 2019, at 10:48, Martin Bjorklund  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> "Joe Clarke (jclarke)"  wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 2019, at 22:37, Qin Wu  wrote:
>> 
>> v-08 is posted to address comments received from YANG doctor review and
>> additional comments from Joe.
>> The diff is:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08
>> 
>> Thanks, Qin. But this isn’t actually what I had in mind. I was suggesting 
>> text targeted at
>> implementors but also warning operators along the lines of:
>> 
>> Operators should be aware that since all read-write datastores are
>> immediately reset to 
>> factor default, the device will become unreachable on the network.
> 
> s/will/may/
> 
> ( and s/factor/factory/ )
> 
> 
>> One should
>> understand how a given vendor’s device will behave after the RPC is executed.
> 
> Perhaps s/One should/It is important to/?
> 
>> Implementors SHOULD reboot the device or otherwise restart processes needed 
>> to
>> bootstrap it.
>> 
>> I realize Jürgen(?) or others had problems with calling out
>> bootstrapping, but I do think
>> some explicit advice is required so all parties are aware what the
>> impact of executing the 
>> RPC would have.
> 
> I had concerns with the previous text about bootstrapping, but I think
> that your proposed text above is fine.

Thanks for the clarification and corrections.

Joe

> 
> 
> /martin
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Joe
>> 
>> -Qin
>> -邮件原件-
>> 发件人: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表
>> internet-dra...@ietf.org
>> 发送时间: 2019年12月5日 11:36
>> 收件人: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
>> 抄送: netmod@ietf.org
>> 主题: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08.txt
>> 
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Network Modeling WG of the IETF.
>> 
>> Title : Factory Default Setting
>> Authors : Qin Wu
>> Balazs Lengyel
>> Ye Niu
>> Filename : draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08.txt
>> Pages : 11
>> Date : 2019-12-04
>> 
>> Abstract:
>> This document defines a method to reset a server to its factory-
>> default content. The reset operation may be used, e.g., when the
>> existing configuration has major errors so re-starting the
>> configuration process from scratch is the best option.
>> 
>> A new factory-reset RPC is defined. When resetting a datastore, all
>> previous configuration settings will be lost and replaced by the
>> factory-default content.
>> 
>> A new optional "factory-default" read-only datastore is defined, that
>> contains the data that will be copied over to the running datastore
>> at reset.
>> 
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default/
>> 
>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08
>> 
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08
>> 
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission 
>> until the
>> htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>> 
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>> 
>> ___
>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>> i-d-annou...@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>> ___
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08.txt

[Martin Bjorklund]

Hi,

"Joe Clarke (jclarke)"  wrote:
>  On Dec 4, 2019, at 22:37, Qin Wu  wrote:
> 
>  v-08 is posted to address comments received from YANG doctor review and
>  additional comments from Joe.
>  The diff is:
>  https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08
> 
> Thanks, Qin. But this isn’t actually what I had in mind. I was suggesting 
> text targeted at
> implementors but also warning operators along the lines of:
> 
> Operators should be aware that since all read-write datastores are
> immediately reset to 
> factor default, the device will become unreachable on the network.

s/will/may/

( and s/factor/factory/ )


> One should
> understand how a given vendor’s device will behave after the RPC is executed.

Perhaps s/One should/It is important to/?

> Implementors SHOULD reboot the device or otherwise restart processes needed to
> bootstrap it.
> 
> I realize Jürgen(?) or others had problems with calling out
> bootstrapping, but I do think
> some explicit advice is required so all parties are aware what the
> impact of executing the 
> RPC would have.

I had concerns with the previous text about bootstrapping, but I think
that your proposed text above is fine.


/martin



> 
> Joe
> 
>  -Qin
>  -邮件原件-
>  发件人: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表
>  internet-dra...@ietf.org
>  发送时间: 2019年12月5日 11:36
>  收件人: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
>  抄送: netmod@ietf.org
>  主题: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08.txt
> 
>  A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
>  This draft is a work item of the Network Modeling WG of the IETF.
> 
>  Title : Factory Default Setting
>  Authors : Qin Wu
>  Balazs Lengyel
>  Ye Niu
>  Filename : draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08.txt
>  Pages : 11
>  Date : 2019-12-04
> 
>  Abstract:
>  This document defines a method to reset a server to its factory-
>  default content. The reset operation may be used, e.g., when the
>  existing configuration has major errors so re-starting the
>  configuration process from scratch is the best option.
> 
>  A new factory-reset RPC is defined. When resetting a datastore, all
>  previous configuration settings will be lost and replaced by the
>  factory-default content.
> 
>  A new optional "factory-default" read-only datastore is defined, that
>  contains the data that will be copied over to the running datastore
>  at reset.
> 
>  The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default/
> 
>  There are also htmlized versions available at:
>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08
> 
>  A diff from the previous version is available at:
>  https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08
> 
>  Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission 
> until the
>  htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
>  Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>  ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
>  ___
>  I-D-Announce mailing list
>  i-d-annou...@ietf.org
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>  Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or
>  ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>  ___
>  netmod mailing list
>  netmod@ietf.org
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08.txt

[Joe Clarke (jclarke)]

On Dec 4, 2019, at 22:37, Qin Wu 
mailto:bill...@huawei.com>> wrote:

v-08 is posted to address comments received from YANG doctor review and 
additional comments from Joe.
The diff is:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08

Thanks, Qin.  But this isn’t actually what I had in mind.  I was suggesting 
text targeted at implementors but also warning operators along the lines of:

Operators should be aware that since all read-write datastores are immediately 
reset to factor default, the device will become unreachable on the network.  
One should understand how a given vendor’s device will behave after the RPC is 
executed.  Implementors SHOULD reboot the device or otherwise restart processes 
needed to bootstrap it.

I realize Jürgen(?) or others had problems with calling out bootstrapping, but 
I do think some explicit advice is required so all parties are aware what the 
impact of executing the RPC would have.

Joe


-Qin
-邮件原件-
发件人: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 
internet-dra...@ietf.org
发送时间: 2019年12月5日 11:36
收件人: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
抄送: netmod@ietf.org
主题: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Network Modeling WG of the IETF.

   Title   : Factory Default Setting
   Authors : Qin Wu
 Balazs Lengyel
 Ye Niu
Filename: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08.txt
Pages   : 11
Date: 2019-12-04

Abstract:
  This document defines a method to reset a server to its factory-
  default content.  The reset operation may be used, e.g., when the
  existing configuration has major errors so re-starting the
  configuration process from scratch is the best option.

  A new factory-reset RPC is defined.  When resetting a datastore, all
  previous configuration settings will be lost and replaced by the
  factory-default content.

  A new optional "factory-default" read-only datastore is defined, that
  contains the data that will be copied over to the running datastore
  at reset.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-08


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission 
until the htmlized version and diff are available at 
tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
I-D-Announce mailing list
i-d-annou...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or 
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-04: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Bjorklund]

Hi,

See one more reply inline.

Martin Bjorklund  wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker  wrote:
> > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-04: No Objection
> > 
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> > 
> > 
> > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> > 
> > 
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > COMMENT:
> > --
> > 
> > Section 1
> > 
> >The "yang-data" extension from [RFC8040] has been copied here,
> >renamed to "structure", and updated to be more flexible.  There is no
> > 
> > The Gen-Art reviewer had a good comment on this that should be acted
> > upon.
> 
> Yes. This is now changed to:
> 
>   This document defines a new YANG extension statement called
>   "structure", which is similar to but more flexible than the
>   "yang-data" extension from [RFC8040].
> 
> 
> > Section 2
> > 
> >This does not mean a YANG data structure has to be used as a top-
> >level protocol message or other top-level data structure.
> > 
> > I was confused by this until I got through Section 4, which (I think!)
> > clarified that I need a top-level extension directive to "declare the
> > named structure", but this is saying that once the structure is
> > declared, it can be placed anywhere in the tree as a "node of structure
> > type".
> 
> It means that once a structure is defined, we don't put any limitations
> on how / where it is used.  It might be used to define some kind of
> message that is used on its own, or it might be used to define a
> structure that can be nested within some other data.  
> 
> An example of the latter is given in A.5.
> 
> > Perhaps we could add a few words here to clarify, e.g., "YANG
> > data structure, once defined," or "A YANG data structure can be used as
> > any other data type, in the rest of the module"?
> 
> Yes, the former is better.  The sentence now reads:
> 
>   This does not mean a YANG data structure, once defined, has to be
>   used as a top-level protocol message or other top-level data
>   structure.
> 
> > Section 3
> > 
> > Do we need to say anything about how the child s under
> > structure/augment-structure get printed?  (I assume they get the same
> > handling as for the datastore tree, but could be wrong.)
> 
> They do.  Perhaps we can add:
> 
>Nodes in YANG data structures are printed according to the rules
>defined in section 2.6 in [RFC8340].
> 
> 
> > 
> >The new sections, including spaces conventions is:
> > 
> >structure :
> > 
> > (I see four spaces between the column the paragraph starts in and the
> > column the "structure" keyword starts in, not two.)
> 
> Thanks, fixed.
> 
> >[augment-structure]
> >[...]
> >  The sub-statements of this extension MUST follow the ABNF
> >   rules below, where the rules are defined in RFC 7950:
> > 
> > [status-stmt]
> > [description-stmt]
> > [reference-stmt]
> > 1*(data-def-stmt / case-stmt)
> > 
> > Comparing to RFC 7950's augment-stmt, we see that when-stmt and
> > if-feature-stmt are not present; would those be used externally to the
> > augment-structure declaration if needed?
> 
> I will discuss this with my co-author and get back.  It might be an
> oversight.

If you need "if-feature" or "when" in this situation you can put it on
the nodes inside the "augment-structure".  For example, instead of:

  augment-structure ... {
if-feature x;
container y;
  }

you would do:

  augment-structure ... {
container y {
  if-feature x;
}
  }

and similar for "when".



/martin


> 
> > Section 6
> > 
> > I might consider adding a note that the data being modelled might have
> > its own security considerations, but there's a pretty good case that
> > this is already covered in RFC 7950 and thus would be redundant here.
> 
> Yes I think that since we specifically refer to the text in 7950 we
> shouldn't just repeat that text.  I guess we could repeat the text
> from 7950 and remove the reference, but I think I would prefer to keep
> the ref.
> 
> > Appendix A.1
> > 
> > Using last+first as the only naming options (and the list keys) is
> > perhaps a bit unfortunate, given, e.g.,
> > https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/
> > (which has been popularized several times on varous social-media sites
> > over the years).
> > I suppose it still suffices for the purposes of this example, though.