Subject: Re: [Netconf] DISCUSS and COMMENT: <draft-ietf-netconf-with-defaults-12.txt>

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:30:18 -0700

Hi,

I did answer this comment.
This is from my reply on 10/26:

2.1.2:

OLD:

   The server MUST support the <with-defaults> parameter with a value
   equal to 'report-all', as specified in Section 3.1.

NEW:

   If the 'report-all' basic mode is supported, the server MUST support 
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   the <with-defaults> parameter with a value equal to 'report-all', as
   specified in Section 3.1.

2.2.2:

   The server MUST support the <with-defaults> parameter with a value
   equal to 'trim', as specified in Section 3.1.

NEW:

   If the 'trim' basic mode is supported, the server MUST support
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   the <with-defaults> parameter with a value equal to 'trim',
   as specified in Section 3.1.

2.3.2:

OLD:

   The server MUST support the <with-defaults> parameter with a value
   equal to 'explicit', as specified in Section 3.3.

NEW:

   If the 'explicit' basic mode is supported, the server MUST support
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   the <with-defaults> parameter with a value equal to 'explicit',
   as specified in Section 3.3.

Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 12:11 PM
To: Andy Bierman
Cc: netconf
Subject: FW: DISCUSS and COMMENT: <draft-ietf-netconf-with-defaults-12.txt>

Hi Andy,

Please answer this issue. The MUSTs in 2.1.2, 2.2.2 and 2.3.2 also
confused Robert Sparks as if they are read individually they seem to
require support for each one of the individual modes and contradict the
statements in sections 2 and 4. 

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Russ Housley
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 9:04 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: DISCUSS and COMMENT: <draft-ietf-netconf-with-defaults-12.txt>

Discuss:

  The Gen-ART Review by Richard Barnes on 25-Oct-2010 raises a concern
  with Section 4 that needs to be addressed.  Richard said:

  I'm confused by the existence of Section 4 in light of the fact that
  Sections 2.1.2, 2.2.2, and 2.3.2 say that a server MUST support a
  <with-defaults> value for each of the basic modes.  If there are
  cases where a server doesn't support a given mode, what does it mean
  for it to "support the <with-defaults> parameter" with a given value? 

Comment:

  The Gen-ART Review by Richard Barnes on 25-Oct-2010 raises several
  concerns and a question.  Please consider them.

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:11:09 +0200

Hi Andy,

Dan

-----Original Message-----

Discuss:

Comment:

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:02:51 +0200

During the IESG discussion Robert suggested that a more clear change
would be: 

OLD:

NEW: 

 If the 'report-all' basic mode is supported, the server MUST conform
  to the behavior in Section 3.1 when processing a <with-defaults>
parameter
  with a value equal to 'report-all'.

And the equivalent for 2.2.2 and 2.3.2

Also, some of the IESG members are still confused on the behavior of
servers and clients. For example - what is the behavior of the server
that advertises default capabilities as in the second example in 4.4?

   urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:with-defaults:1.0?basic-
   mode=explicit&also-supported=report-all,report-all-tagged

Alexey cleared. The document will go into Revised-ID needed. I suggest
that you circulate an  intermediate version before Beijing (submissions
are closed) and try to close the issues with the DISCUSSing ADs before
and at the meeting. 

Dan

> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 9:30 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: netconf
> Subject: RE: DISCUSS and COMMENT: 
> <draft-ietf-netconf-with-defaults-12.txt>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Subject: FW: DISCUSS and COMMENT: 
> <draft-ietf-netconf-with-defaults-12.txt>
> 
>  
> Hi Andy,
> 
> Please answer this issue. The MUSTs in 2.1.2, 2.2.2 and 2.3.2 
> also confused Robert Sparks as if they are read individually 
> they seem to require support for each one of the individual 
> modes and contradict the statements in sections 2 and 4. 
> 
> Dan
> 
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Russ Housley
> Subject: DISCUSS and COMMENT: 
> <draft-ietf-netconf-with-defaults-12.txt>
> 
> Discuss:
>

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:16:18 -0700

Hi,

OK to 2.x.2 changes.
Agree 4.4 is confusing.

Here is a proposed change for the issue in 4.4:

Sec. 4.4, para 2:

OLD:
   The identifier MAY have another parameter: "also-supported".  This
   parameter indicates which additional default handling modes the
   server supports.  The value of the parameter is a comma separated
   list of one or more modes that are supported beside the mode
   indicated in the 'basic-mode' parameter.  Possible modes are 'report-
   all', 'report-all-tagged', 'trim', and 'explicit', as defined in
   Section 3.

NEW:
   The identifier MAY have another parameter: "also-supported".  This
   parameter indicates which additional enumeration values (besides
   the basic-mode enumeration), the server will accept for the 
   <with-defaults> parameter in section 5.  
   The value of the parameter is a comma separated
   list of one or more modes that are supported beside the mode
   indicated in the 'basic-mode' parameter.  Possible modes are 'report-
   all', 'report-all-tagged', 'trim', and 'explicit', as defined in
   Section 3.

Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 10:03 AM
To: Andy Bierman
Cc: netconf
Subject: Re: [Netconf] DISCUSS and COMMENT: <draft-ietf-netconf-with-defaults-12.txt>

OLD:

NEW: 

Dan

>    If the 'report-all' basic mode is supported, the server 
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:49:23 -0700

Hi,

The only edit that is (much) more than editorial:

 - remove section 4.3

   4.3.  Conformance

      Every NETCONF server SHOULD implement this capability.

The use-case of forcing the server to return the schema default for
missing nodes in its database is now optional-to-implement.
This led to the discussion about splitting the capability into 2 pieces
  - basic-mode
  - with-defaults

The WG decided not to do this.

Only a 4741 server actually needs to advertise its basic-mode.
A 4741bis server must support the 'remove' operation, in addition
to the defaults-sensitive 'delete' operation. 

Since the client has the schemas for all the NETCONF data, retrieval
operations that result in missing leafs (no error, access control,
or filtering applies) can safely be filled in with the schema default.

Therefore, a 4741bis does not really need to advertise its 
basic-mode at all.

Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 10:03 AM
To: Andy Bierman
Cc: netconf
Subject: Re: [Netconf] DISCUSS and COMMENT: <draft-ietf-netconf-with-defaults-12.txt>

OLD:

NEW: 

Dan

---

From: Phil Shafer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:52:15 -0400

>      Every NETCONF server SHOULD implement this capability.

+1 for removing 4.3.

Thanks,
 Phil

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:53:52 +0200

Andy

picking up an earlier comment, 2.2.2 should reference 3.2 not 3.1

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Bierman" <[email-masked]>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "netconf" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Netconf] DISCUSS and
COMMENT:<draft-ietf-netconf-with-defaults-12.txt>