Subject: Re: [Netconf] with-defaults-01

From: Balazs Lengyel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 12:57:18 +0200

WashamFan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 1) bullet 2, use cases for needing default values, sec1:
> 
> o  Some management applications might not have the capabilities to
>     correctly parse and interpret formal data models.
> 
> IMO, the manager described above neither understands default values nor non-default values, does it? So how does this use case make sense?

BALAZS: The manager above can still use the values supplied as defaults if report-all is used. 
  E.g. We have applications that proxy netconf requests with some minimal checking and 
transformation.

> 
> 2) para3, sec 2.3 & para2, sec2.5
> 
> If no 'supported' parameter is present, Does it mean the device only supports one behavior which is specified in 'basic' parameter or support all behaviors?
> Since values of <with-default> are restricted to the behaviors the device supports, it should be clarified what the values that a device support for are.

BALAZS: Will be clarified.

---

From: WashamFan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 10:38:19 +0800

Hi,

The draft defines 3 affected operations in sec 2.5, and there is
a para to specify how to identify other potential affected ops:

   Other operations that return configuration data SHOULD also handle
   default data according to the rules set in this document, and
   explicitly state this in their documentation.  If this is not
   specified in the document defining the respective operation, the
   default handling rules described herein do not affect these
   operations.

I suggest introduce an optional parameter in capability URI to 
indicate what other affected opertions are supported by 
Netconf server, and at least I can see following benefits:

(1) this dynamic discovery of affected operations can sync client
with server timely.

(2) If the relevant docs are unreachable for the client, the client
can still discover the affected operations without document
consultant.

(3) maybe it is effective and efficient for the client.

The capability URI would look like this:

   urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:with-defaults:1.0?basic=report-
   all&supported=trim:explicit&ops=ns1:op1,ns2:op2
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Any comments?

washam

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 19:58:07 -0700

>    all&supported=trim:explicit&ops=ns1:op1,ns2:op2

This seems rather complicated to me.
I don't know why the draft needs to say anything
about operations other than the 3 mentioned explicitly.
The capability is for those 3 operations only.
If there are more that need to be mentioned,
then what are they?  They should be in the draft.

> washam

Andy

---

From: Balazs Lengyel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:22:50 +0200

Hello Washam,
In some cases e.g. copy-config it might not be trivial how with-defaults affects the operation. 
So you still have to check the relevant docs.

Also I feel this goes into the "too many options" directions.

Balazs

-- 
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
System Manager
ECN: 831 7320                        Fax: +36 1 4377792
Tel: +36-1-437-7320                  email: [email-masked]