Subject: [Netconf] darft-ietf-netconf-monitoring: some proposed changes for v10 for comment

From: "Mark Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:29:42 -0500

Hello,

There are some specific changes planned for the next revision of the
monitoring draft which we'd like to share with the ML in advance of the
next draft publication.  Other changes based on WGLC comments will be
shared in the updated draft.

Proposed changes:

1.       Title change from 'NETCONF Monitoring Schema' to 'YANG Module
for NETCONF Monitoring'

2.       Namespace change from 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:state' to
'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-monitoring:DRAFT-10'

3.       YANG module change from 'ietf-netconf-state' to
'ietf-netconf-monitoring'

4.       Top-level container change from 'netconf-state' to
'ietf-netconf-monitoring'

The rationale for these changes is consistency and alignment with the
yang module usage guidelines (see
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-usage-02).

Please send any comments to the ML prior to Nov 26th if you object to
these changes. 

cheers,

Mark

"The author works for Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson ("Ericsson"), who
is solely responsible for this email and its contents. All inquiries
regarding this email should be addressed to Ericsson. Nortel has
provided the use of the nortel.com domain to Ericsson in connection with
this email solely for the purpose of connectivity and Nortel Networks
has no liability for the email or its contents. The web site for
Ericsson is www.ericsson.com <http://www.ericsson.com/> ."

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:52:03 +0100

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:29:42PM +0100, Mark Scott wrote:

> 4.  Top-level container change from ?netconf-state? to
> ?ietf-netconf-monitoring?

> The rationale for these changes is consistency and alignment with
> the yang module usage guidelines (see

I fail to find the guideline in netmod-yang-usage-02 that leads to a
toplevel name like ietf-netconf-monitoring. I am not saying its wrong
just that I do not understand the pointer to netmod-yang-usage-02.

I guess I am missing a plan for a general strategy. If we have an IETF
protocol 'foo', do we expect YANG modules such as:

  YANG module          YANG toplevel        YANG contents

  ietf-foo-monitoring  ietf-foo-monitoring  config false objects
  ietf-foo-config      ietf-foo-config      config true objects
  ietf-foo             -                    typedefs, groupings, rpcs

Do we also allow / expect the following:

  ietf-foo-types       -                    typedefs, groupings
  ietf-foo-ops         -                    operations

Is the namespace always going to be
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:$MODULE-NAME[:DRAFT-$VERSION]?

Should ietf-foo-monitoring be in general ietf-foo-state or do we have
yet separate modules to report operational state? Perhaps the answer
to all this is we do not know - but I thought I at least bring up the
question so we don't do things by accident.

/js

PS: I am CCing NETMOD since this is mostly an YANG issue. Further
    discussion should likely stay in NETMOD, assuming the NETCONF
    monitoring people are on NETMOD as well.

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0100 (CET)

Hi,

> just that I do not understand the pointer to netmod-yang-usage-02.

I also noted this, and we had this discussion some time ago.  At this
point, I don't think we should change it from netconf-state.

>   ietf-foo-ops         -                    operations

Hopefully not...

Looking at the netconf case, I think everything could be under
'netconf'.  But not in the urn:...:ietf-netconf-monitoring namespace.

Maybe it would be better to use a more generic namespace for netconf
state and monitoring, and put monitoring in its own submodule(s) and
config in other submodule(s).

> urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:$MODULE-NAME[:DRAFT-$VERSION]?

It is slightly redundant, since the $MODULE-NAME is on the form
'ietf-NAME'.   I think

   urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:netconf-monitoring

would be fine.

>     monitoring people are on NETMOD as well.

I think you forgot that, so I'm doing it now.

/martin

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:14:01 -0800

> point, I don't think we should change it from netconf-state.

I agree.
I am not sure if there is still a guideline that
says the top-level container should be the
same as the module name.  This is not really needed.
The module name is not a QName so it needs
special naming considerations.  The top-level
element is a QName and there are no naming
collisions to worry about (because the namespace
URI was picked to be globally unique.)

> 'netconf'.  But not in the urn:...:ietf-netconf-monitoring namespace.

We went though this issue awhile back.
one container was config=true and the other
was config=false.  So one was renamed to
netconf-state instead of augmenting the 4741 netconf node.

> I think you forgot that, so I'm doing it now.

Andy

---

From: "Mark Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:00:23 -0500

I agree we don't need to align the top-level container - and will keep
/netconf-state/.

I also dislike the redundancy and will update the namespace to
'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:netconf-monitoring'.
	- maybe update the yang usage guidelines accordingly?

Mark

Ericsson is www.ericsson.com."

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 6:14 PM
To: Martin Bjorklund
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Netconf] YANG module naming conventions

I agree.

> I think you forgot that, so I'm doing it now.

Andy
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:22:21 -0800

Hi -
 
> From: "Mark Scott" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Andy Bierman" <[email-masked]>; "Martin Bjorklund" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 2:00 PM
...
> is solely responsible for this email and its contents. All inquiries
...

If the "who" above refers to "Ericsson" (the only way the sentence
is grammatical), then it's not clear how this fits in with IETF process,
which presumes participation by individuals rather than corporations.

Is this yet another example of auto-generated text which
should simply be ignored?

Randy

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:18:46 +0100

> 	- maybe update the yang usage guidelines accordingly?

If there is agreement to not carry the module name in the URN, we
should indeed document that agreement and all modules should stick to
the documented agreement. So there is no "maybe". And yes, "ietf" is
redundant but then special casing the removal of a module name prefix
for generating the URN does not really seem to make things simpler.
For me,

  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:$MODULENAME

is simpler than

  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:`echo $MODULENAME | sed s/^ietf-//`

and this special casing will also lead to subsequent questions about
how we deal with modules coming from other RFC streams. For me, simply
copying the module name after the urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang: prefix
is as simple as it can get (I can even get the module name from the
namespace in the payload with straight cut'n paste).

/js

---

From: "Mark Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:21:58 -0500

Randy,

As a result of the acquisition of certain Nortel assets by Ericsson all
emails originating from associated accounts must have this (exact) text
appended.

Please ignore the text.

cheers,
Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:22 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Netconf] YANG module naming conventions

Hi -
 
...
...

Randy

---

From: "Mark Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:31:56 -0500

Agree.  No special case required and the complete module name is used in
the URN (see v10).

Mark

 "The author works for Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson ("Ericsson"),
who is solely responsible for this email and its contents. All inquiries
regarding this email should be addressed to Ericsson. Nortel has
provided the use of the nortel.com domain to Ericsson in connection with
this email solely for the purpose of connectivity and Nortel Networks
has no liability for the email or its contents. The web site for
Ericsson is www.ericsson.com."

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder
[mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 4:19 AM
To: Scott, Mark ERICSSON (CAR:2N00)
Cc: Andy Bierman; Martin Bjorklund; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Netconf] YANG module naming conventions

is simpler than

/js