On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 7:19 AM, t.petch <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: > Oppose adoption > > As others have said, there is a lack of a problem to solve. > >
Actually, I see eventual value in the tags themselves if: - each tag is defined with a YANG identity - there is standard filtering based on derived-from-or-self - the standard tags are maintained in an IANA module (iana-yang-tags) - there is a standard YANG extension yt:module-tag that can be used to assign tags to an entire module - there is a standard YANG extension yt:data-tag that can be used to assign tags to a YANG data subtree - standard YANG modules include appropriate tagging IMO it is similar to iana-if-types, which is much better than each vendor or each operator assigning all the code-points. It would be a lot of work to come up with a good set of standard tags but it seems there are people willing to work on that. Andy When I ask users of a technology that uses #hashtags where they come > from, how they come into being and similar elements of procedure, I > never get an answer. #hashtags seem to be provided to allow a storm to > gather on social media, around some vague idea, in order to put pressure > on someone or something that would otherwise be unjustified:-) > > The tags listed in Section 10.2 seem just as vague and I do not see a > role for something somewhat ill-defined in YANG. > > Tom Petch > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Phil Shafer" <p...@juniper.net> > To: "Andy Bierman" <a...@yumaworks.com> > Cc: "NETMOD Working Group" <netmod@ietf.org> > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 6:59 PM > Subject: Re: [netmod] Adoption Poll: > draft-rtgyangdt-netmod-module-tags-02 > > > > Andy Bierman writes: > > >The draft avoids discussion of any useful operations based on tags. > > > > Nor does it really clearly say "what" is being tagged. The absract > > talks about "used to help classify and organize modules", but the > > Introduction lacks any expansion on this. There's really no clear > > problem statement or a clear definition of why we need tags or what > > one would use them for. > > > > It would also be helpful to understand why "#hashtag" and the string > > format ("ietf:routing", "vendor:super-duper:...") are chosen over > > YANG identities. It seems like identity naming standards and > inheritance > > would be good features. > > > > Also it's not clear why these would be configurable rather that > > controlled by the module author. I'd rather have the OAM standard > > YANG module say something like: > > > > module ietf-oam { > > import "ietf-category" { prefix ietf-category; } > > > > identify ietf-oam { > > base ietf-category:ietf-standard; > > description "This module category represents something > > OAM related."; > > } > > > > ietf-category:module-category ietf-oam; > > ... > > } > > > > The draft says: > > > > Implementations that do not support the reset rpc statement > (whether > > at all, or just for a particular rpc or module) MUST respond with > an > > YANG transport protocol-appropriate rpc layer error when such a > > statement is received. > > > > The entire idea of NETCONF/YANG is that the client _knows_ what it > > can safely send instead of tossing spaghetti at the wall until > > something sticks. Avoid programming-by-error-detection, which > > creates fragile infrastructure. > > > > Use "feature" to control optional portions of a YANG module. I'd > > suggest one feature for "reset" support and another for "read-only", > > since IMHO the idea of someone munging the categories of standard > > modules is, well, disconcerting. > > > > "Local" tags are not well explained. The idea of a user/admin > > tagging modules means that something is broken. Users shouldn't > > understand YANG modules. Users use applications, some of which are > > home-grown. Is "local" appropriate for my "audit interfaces" script? > > > > 6.1 is missing the list "module-tags". > > > > 9.1 advocates putting vital information in the description string, > > which is IMHO not a good idea. We want to put as much information > > in machine-readable format as possible, so I can ask ietf.org > > questions like "give me a list of ietf-oam-related yang modules" > > and get a nice list. > > > > It also talks about "SHOULD" and "MAY" tags without giving any > > clue as to why or when this would be appropriate or useful. > > > > So my vote would be that this document needs some significant work > > and expansion before it's a supportable draft. I think the authors > > have more in their heads than they've put into the draft and I'd > > like to see the rest of their thoughts. > > > > Thanks, > > Phil > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod