On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 10:42 AM Randy Presuhn < randy_pres...@alumni.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Hi - > > On 2021-09-27 10:13 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: > ... > > SNMP GetNext and GetBulk do not handle missing nodes well at all, so it > > became > > common practice to return 0 or -1, etc. to simplify client processing of > > these operations. > > None of the YANG-based protocols have this problem. > > In what way would "missing node" processing be substantially different > between the two protocol families? In both cases the server locator > methods need to be able to be able to skip over "not present" instances, > and will get messy if the instrumented code has adopted the otherwise > tidier paradigm of row/instance-wise registration rather than a general > access method for all instances of the class. For the client I can't > see any substantial difference at all between needs to happen to process > the results correctly. > > NETCONF and RESTCONF do not have "row skew" problems. They return subtrees, not individual varbinds like SNMP. Retrieving a "table row" in SNMP is much more complicated when some columns are unimplemented. A YANG subtree includes all the data the client is allowed to view, including augmenting nodes. That said, in my non-YANG experience it's a lot cleaner to generate code > to handle sentinel values (and a lot harder for implementers to ignore > them) than it is to assign ambiguous semantics to "missing data" cases. > > Randy > > Andy > _______________________________________________ > 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
