Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Alexander Clemm]

Thank you - we will submit it shortly.
Looking forward to discussions in Bangkok
--- Alex

> -Original Message-
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 1:43 PM
> To: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> 
> This message concludes the successful adoption of draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-
> diff-00.
> 
> Authors, please resubmit this draft, unchanged, other than to rename it as 
> draft-
> ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-00.
> 
> As is generally the case, this approval signals that the working group is 
> willing to
> work on the problem, not that the specific solution described in the is itself
> approved.  In particular, the chairs request that the use cases are 
> reexamined in
> order to determine what format and/or formats are needed and, if more than
> one, which is the default.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kent (and Lou and Joel)
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: netmod  on behalf of Kent Watsen
> 
> Date: Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:48 PM
> To: "netmod@ietf.org" 
> Subject: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> 
> The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt this draft, and 
> no
> objections.
> 
> This email starts an adoption poll for:
> 
>   https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dclemm-2Dnetmod-2Dnmda-2Ddiff-
> 2D00=DwICAg=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=gs
> KerK-
> Djok6lTL0A8Sm8PaSJp6FiR0S154Q4ngxing=u88P8I81zsimKgBTZg6rJeSJBMR8d
> k-DshFuuehBkVM=
> 
> Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll.
> If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.
> 
> Kent (and Lou and Joel)
> 
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod=DwICAg=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Sc
> bfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=gs
> KerK-
> Djok6lTL0A8Sm8PaSJp6FiR0S154Q4ngxing=PSOMHRPSVUZHLBlFdhmxWjwRc4
> VHG45k-vh2cJJjqI8=
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Kent Watsen]

This message concludes the successful adoption of 
draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00.  

Authors, please resubmit this draft, unchanged, other than to rename it as 
draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-00.

As is generally the case, this approval signals that the working group is 
willing to work on the problem, not that the specific solution described in the 
is itself approved.  In particular, the chairs request that the use cases are 
reexamined in order to determine what format and/or formats are needed and, if 
more than one, which is the default.

Thanks,
Kent (and Lou and Joel)


-Original Message-
From: netmod  on behalf of Kent Watsen 

Date: Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:48 PM
To: "netmod@ietf.org" 
Subject: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.

This email starts an adoption poll for:

  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dclemm-2Dnetmod-2Dnmda-2Ddiff-2D00=DwICAg=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=gsKerK-Djok6lTL0A8Sm8PaSJp6FiR0S154Q4ngxing=u88P8I81zsimKgBTZg6rJeSJBMR8dk-DshFuuehBkVM=

Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll. 
If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.

Kent (and Lou and Joel)

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod=DwICAg=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=gsKerK-Djok6lTL0A8Sm8PaSJp6FiR0S154Q4ngxing=PSOMHRPSVUZHLBlFdhmxWjwRc4VHG45k-vh2cJJjqI8=

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Kent Watsen]

Yes, it would be good to be clear on the use cases.

It is not my intention for support human interaction, though that may occur.

The  primary question I’m hoping this work supports is “how do two datastores
differ?”, which I view as needing to return either, perhaps based on a client-
selectable parameter:

  1.  a list of xpaths where diffs occur or
  2.  a list of xpaths where diffs occur *and* both values for each diff

How the diff is consumed and, in particular, if it leads to an configuration
operation that intends to align one datastore to the other, is be a secondary
consideration IMO.

Kent // contributor

On 10/10/18, 10:20 PM, "Andy Bierman" 
mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> wrote:



On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Kent Watsen 
mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> wrote:
Hi Alex, no objection.

My support withdraw appears to put me in the rough, which is fine from a 
process perspective.  But make no mistake, I think that it's bizaar for a 
"diff" to not show both values.  Andy's idea to augment in an 'old-value' node 
seems like a step in the right direction.

The requirements and use-cases have not really been discussed first.
If the use-case is for humans to compare the datastores (e.g., a side-by-side 
diff like an I-D)
then the format would be very different than if the use-case was more 
programmatic
(e.g., look for no diffs, look for an edit completed, patch a local copy).

Kent // contributor

Andy



-Original Message-
From: Alexander Clemm 
mailto:alexander.cl...@huawei.com>>
Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 6:06 PM
To: Kent Watsen mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>, Ladislav 
Lhotka mailto:lho...@nic.cz>>, Andy Bierman 
mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>>, Juergen Schoenwaelder 
mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>>,
 "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" 
mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

Which format to make mandatory sounds like something we can discuss in Bangkok. 
 The reason YANG-patch was chosen is reuse, although it is certainly 
conceivable to develop another format.  (Per discussion on the list we will put 
the hooks in place to allow for other options.)  Either way, this seems to be 
one of the technical details that need to be decided, not something that would 
make or break support as a whole?
--- Alex

> -Original Message-
> From: Kent Watsen [mailto:kwat...@juniper.net<mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 10:17 AM
> To: Alexander Clemm 
> mailto:alexander.cl...@huawei.com>>; Ladislav 
> Lhotka
> mailto:lho...@nic.cz>>; Andy Bierman 
> mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>>; Juergen
> Schoenwaelder 
> mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>>;
>  netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>
> I agree that a mandatory to implement format is desirable.
>
> I disagree that YANG-Patch is the right format, for reasons stated before.  I 
> feel
> that a compromise of this sort for a mandatory-to-implement is wrong.
>
> If this is what the WG wants, I withdraw my support.
>
> Kent // contributor
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexander Clemm 
> mailto:alexander.cl...@huawei.com>>
> Date: Monday, October 8, 2018 at 5:05 PM
> To: Ladislav Lhotka mailto:lho...@nic.cz>>, Kent Watsen 
> mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>,
> Andy Bierman mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>>, Juergen 
> Schoenwaelder
> mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>>,
>  "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>"
> mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
> Subject: RE: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>
> I would second the request for one format (which is mandatory to support),
> which must be specified.  YANG-Patch is the logical candidate IMHO.
>
> To allow selection of other formats using an input parameter makes sense, but
> adds some complexity from there:  How to know which formats are supported?
> (Add a list of supported formats somewhere?)   Or simply rely on augmentation
> for those implementations that want it?
>
> --- Alex
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: netmod 
> > [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>] On Behalf 
> > Of Ladislav
> > Lhotka
> > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 12:50 AM
> > To: Kent Watsen mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>; Andy 
> > Bierman
> > mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>>; Juergen Schoenwaelder 
> >  > university.de<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__university.de=DwMFaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBY

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Andy Bierman]

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Kent Watsen  wrote:

> Hi Alex, no objection.
>
> My support withdraw appears to put me in the rough, which is fine from a
> process perspective.  But make no mistake, I think that it's bizaar for a
> "diff" to not show both values.  Andy's idea to augment in an 'old-value'
> node seems like a step in the right direction.
>
>
The requirements and use-cases have not really been discussed first.
If the use-case is for humans to compare the datastores (e.g., a
side-by-side diff like an I-D)
then the format would be very different than if the use-case was more
programmatic
(e.g., look for no diffs, look for an edit completed, patch a local copy).


> Kent // contributor
>

Andy


>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexander Clemm 
> Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 6:06 PM
> To: Kent Watsen , Ladislav Lhotka ,
> Andy Bierman , Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>, "netmod@ietf.org" 
> Subject: RE: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>
> Which format to make mandatory sounds like something we can discuss in
> Bangkok.  The reason YANG-patch was chosen is reuse, although it is
> certainly conceivable to develop another format.  (Per discussion on the
> list we will put the hooks in place to allow for other options.)  Either
> way, this seems to be one of the technical details that need to be decided,
> not something that would make or break support as a whole?
> --- Alex
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Kent Watsen [mailto:kwat...@juniper.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 10:17 AM
> > To: Alexander Clemm ; Ladislav Lhotka
> > ; Andy Bierman ; Juergen
> > Schoenwaelder ; netmod@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-
> 00
> >
> > I agree that a mandatory to implement format is desirable.
> >
> > I disagree that YANG-Patch is the right format, for reasons stated
> before.  I feel
> > that a compromise of this sort for a mandatory-to-implement is wrong.
> >
> > If this is what the WG wants, I withdraw my support.
> >
> > Kent // contributor
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-
> > From: Alexander Clemm 
> > Date: Monday, October 8, 2018 at 5:05 PM
> > To: Ladislav Lhotka , Kent Watsen ,
> > Andy Bierman , Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > , "netmod@ietf.org"
> > 
> > Subject: RE: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-
> 00
> >
> > I would second the request for one format (which is mandatory to
> support),
> > which must be specified.  YANG-Patch is the logical candidate IMHO.
> >
> > To allow selection of other formats using an input parameter makes
> sense, but
> > adds some complexity from there:  How to know which formats are
> supported?
> > (Add a list of supported formats somewhere?)   Or simply rely on
> augmentation
> > for those implementations that want it?
> >
> > --- Alex
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav
> > > Lhotka
> > > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 12:50 AM
> > > To: Kent Watsen ; Andy Bierman
> > > ; Juergen Schoenwaelder  > > university.de>; netmod@ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for
> > > draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> > >
> > > Kent Watsen  writes:
> > >
> > > > Sure, one mandatory to implement format, others nice to have.
> > > > Interoperability good.  Agreed.
> > > >
> > > > But why YANG-patch and not something built for the purpose (e.g.,
> > > > YANG-diff) that, in particular, provides an actual diff as opposed
> > > > to a data-tree operation that only shows one of the two values?
> > >
> > > Such a format can be developed independently, I would support it.
> > >
> > > Lada
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Kent // contributor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/4/18, 3:27 PM, "Andy Bierman"
> > > mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > > mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> > > university.de>> wrote:
> > > > Folks, the more formats there are, the less interoperability we get..
> > > > If there are multiple formats, is there a mandatory to implement
> > > > format? Does the mandatory to implement format

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Kent Watsen]

Hi Alex, no objection.

My support withdraw appears to put me in the rough, which is fine from a 
process perspective.  But make no mistake, I think that it's bizaar for a 
"diff" to not show both values.  Andy's idea to augment in an 'old-value' node 
seems like a step in the right direction.

Kent // contributor


-Original Message-
From: Alexander Clemm 
Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 6:06 PM
To: Kent Watsen , Ladislav Lhotka , Andy 
Bierman , Juergen Schoenwaelder 
, "netmod@ietf.org" 
Subject: RE: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

Which format to make mandatory sounds like something we can discuss in Bangkok. 
 The reason YANG-patch was chosen is reuse, although it is certainly 
conceivable to develop another format.  (Per discussion on the list we will put 
the hooks in place to allow for other options.)  Either way, this seems to be 
one of the technical details that need to be decided, not something that would 
make or break support as a whole?  
--- Alex

> -Original Message-
> From: Kent Watsen [mailto:kwat...@juniper.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 10:17 AM
> To: Alexander Clemm ; Ladislav Lhotka
> ; Andy Bierman ; Juergen
> Schoenwaelder ; netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> 
> I agree that a mandatory to implement format is desirable.
> 
> I disagree that YANG-Patch is the right format, for reasons stated before.  I 
> feel
> that a compromise of this sort for a mandatory-to-implement is wrong.
> 
> If this is what the WG wants, I withdraw my support.
> 
> Kent // contributor
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexander Clemm 
> Date: Monday, October 8, 2018 at 5:05 PM
> To: Ladislav Lhotka , Kent Watsen ,
> Andy Bierman , Juergen Schoenwaelder
> , "netmod@ietf.org"
> 
> Subject: RE: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> 
> I would second the request for one format (which is mandatory to support),
> which must be specified.  YANG-Patch is the logical candidate IMHO.
> 
> To allow selection of other formats using an input parameter makes sense, but
> adds some complexity from there:  How to know which formats are supported?
> (Add a list of supported formats somewhere?)   Or simply rely on augmentation
> for those implementations that want it?
> 
> --- Alex
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav
> > Lhotka
> > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 12:50 AM
> > To: Kent Watsen ; Andy Bierman
> > ; Juergen Schoenwaelder  > university.de>; netmod@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for
> > draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> >
> > Kent Watsen  writes:
> >
> > > Sure, one mandatory to implement format, others nice to have.
> > > Interoperability good.  Agreed.
> > >
> > > But why YANG-patch and not something built for the purpose (e.g.,
> > > YANG-diff) that, in particular, provides an actual diff as opposed
> > > to a data-tree operation that only shows one of the two values?
> >
> > Such a format can be developed independently, I would support it.
> >
> > Lada
> >
> > >
> > > Kent // contributor
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/4/18, 3:27 PM, "Andy Bierman"
> > mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> > university.de>> wrote:
> > > Folks, the more formats there are, the less interoperability we get.
> > > If there are multiple formats, is there a mandatory to implement
> > > format? Does the mandatory to implement format depend on the
> > > protocol that is being used?
> > >
> > > I prefer one format or if necessary I am fine with one mandatory to
> > > implement format. An open ended collection of implementation
> > > specific formats is super flexible but defeats the purpose of a
> > > standard, namely interoperability.
> > >
> > > I agree there needs to be 1 mandatory-to-implement format.
> > >
> > > IMO this needs to be YANG Patch because it is more precise then
> > > constructing an XML tree with operation attributes in it (e.g., how
> > > else do you represent a delete or a move?) Also, YANG Push is using
> > > YANG Patch format and common code for push and diff would be possible.
> > >
> > > I think other formats should be allowed.
> > > This is very tool-specific. I could see how somebody might want a
&

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Alexander Clemm]

Which format to make mandatory sounds like something we can discuss in Bangkok. 
 The reason YANG-patch was chosen is reuse, although it is certainly 
conceivable to develop another format.  (Per discussion on the list we will put 
the hooks in place to allow for other options.)  Either way, this seems to be 
one of the technical details that need to be decided, not something that would 
make or break support as a whole?  
--- Alex

> -Original Message-
> From: Kent Watsen [mailto:kwat...@juniper.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 10:17 AM
> To: Alexander Clemm ; Ladislav Lhotka
> ; Andy Bierman ; Juergen
> Schoenwaelder ; netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> 
> I agree that a mandatory to implement format is desirable.
> 
> I disagree that YANG-Patch is the right format, for reasons stated before.  I 
> feel
> that a compromise of this sort for a mandatory-to-implement is wrong.
> 
> If this is what the WG wants, I withdraw my support.
> 
> Kent // contributor
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexander Clemm 
> Date: Monday, October 8, 2018 at 5:05 PM
> To: Ladislav Lhotka , Kent Watsen ,
> Andy Bierman , Juergen Schoenwaelder
> , "netmod@ietf.org"
> 
> Subject: RE: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> 
> I would second the request for one format (which is mandatory to support),
> which must be specified.  YANG-Patch is the logical candidate IMHO.
> 
> To allow selection of other formats using an input parameter makes sense, but
> adds some complexity from there:  How to know which formats are supported?
> (Add a list of supported formats somewhere?)   Or simply rely on augmentation
> for those implementations that want it?
> 
> --- Alex
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav
> > Lhotka
> > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 12:50 AM
> > To: Kent Watsen ; Andy Bierman
> > ; Juergen Schoenwaelder  > university.de>; netmod@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for
> > draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> >
> > Kent Watsen  writes:
> >
> > > Sure, one mandatory to implement format, others nice to have.
> > > Interoperability good.  Agreed.
> > >
> > > But why YANG-patch and not something built for the purpose (e.g.,
> > > YANG-diff) that, in particular, provides an actual diff as opposed
> > > to a data-tree operation that only shows one of the two values?
> >
> > Such a format can be developed independently, I would support it.
> >
> > Lada
> >
> > >
> > > Kent // contributor
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/4/18, 3:27 PM, "Andy Bierman"
> > mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> > university.de>> wrote:
> > > Folks, the more formats there are, the less interoperability we get.
> > > If there are multiple formats, is there a mandatory to implement
> > > format? Does the mandatory to implement format depend on the
> > > protocol that is being used?
> > >
> > > I prefer one format or if necessary I am fine with one mandatory to
> > > implement format. An open ended collection of implementation
> > > specific formats is super flexible but defeats the purpose of a
> > > standard, namely interoperability.
> > >
> > > I agree there needs to be 1 mandatory-to-implement format.
> > >
> > > IMO this needs to be YANG Patch because it is more precise then
> > > constructing an XML tree with operation attributes in it (e.g., how
> > > else do you represent a delete or a move?) Also, YANG Push is using
> > > YANG Patch format and common code for push and diff would be possible.
> > >
> > > I think other formats should be allowed.
> > > This is very tool-specific. I could see how somebody might want a
> > > textual patch of the XML representation to produce the new XML
> > representation.
> > >
> > >
> > > /js
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 05:41:22PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> > >> We agree that the diff-format should be client-selectable, modulo
> > >> what the
> > server supports.  yang-patch and edit-config both are viable.  Should
> > we document them both?
> > >>
> > >> That said, since neither edit-config nor yang-patch are

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Kent Watsen]

I agree that a mandatory to implement format is desirable.

I disagree that YANG-Patch is the right format, for reasons
stated before.  I feel that a compromise of this sort for
a mandatory-to-implement is wrong.

If this is what the WG wants, I withdraw my support.

Kent // contributor



-Original Message-
From: Alexander Clemm 
Date: Monday, October 8, 2018 at 5:05 PM
To: Ladislav Lhotka , Kent Watsen , Andy 
Bierman , Juergen Schoenwaelder 
, "netmod@ietf.org" 
Subject: RE: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

I would second the request for one format (which is mandatory to support), 
which must be specified.  YANG-Patch is the logical candidate IMHO.  

To allow selection of other formats using an input parameter makes sense, but 
adds some complexity from there:  How to know which formats are supported?  
(Add a list of supported formats somewhere?)   Or simply rely on augmentation 
for those implementations that want it?  

--- Alex

> -Original Message-
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 12:50 AM
> To: Kent Watsen ; Andy Bierman
> ; Juergen Schoenwaelder  university.de>; netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> 
> Kent Watsen  writes:
> 
> > Sure, one mandatory to implement format, others nice to have.
> > Interoperability good.  Agreed.
> >
> > But why YANG-patch and not something built for the purpose (e.g.,
> > YANG-diff) that, in particular, provides an actual diff as opposed to
> > a data-tree operation that only shows one of the two values?
> 
> Such a format can be developed independently, I would support it.
> 
> Lada
> 
> >
> > Kent // contributor
> >
> >
> > On 10/4/18, 3:27 PM, "Andy Bierman"
> mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> university.de>> wrote:
> > Folks, the more formats there are, the less interoperability we get.
> > If there are multiple formats, is there a mandatory to implement
> > format? Does the mandatory to implement format depend on the protocol
> > that is being used?
> >
> > I prefer one format or if necessary I am fine with one mandatory to
> > implement format. An open ended collection of implementation specific
> > formats is super flexible but defeats the purpose of a standard,
> > namely interoperability.
> >
> > I agree there needs to be 1 mandatory-to-implement format.
> >
> > IMO this needs to be YANG Patch because it is more precise then
> > constructing an XML tree with operation attributes in it (e.g., how
> > else do you represent a delete or a move?) Also, YANG Push is using
> > YANG Patch format and common code for push and diff would be possible.
> >
> > I think other formats should be allowed.
> > This is very tool-specific. I could see how somebody might want a
> > textual patch of the XML representation to produce the new XML
> representation.
> >
> >
> > /js
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 05:41:22PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> >> We agree that the diff-format should be client-selectable, modulo what the
> server supports.  yang-patch and edit-config both are viable.  Should we
> document them both?
> >>
> >> That said, since neither edit-config nor yang-patch are diffing formats, so
> much as formats for converting one data tree to another, would it make sense
> to define an actual diffing format?  I would think that a diff would provide 
> both
> values, not just a new value.
> >>
> >> Kent // contributor
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: netmod
> >> mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf
> >> of Ladislav Lhotka mailto:lho...@nic.cz>>
> >> Organization: CZ.NIC
> >> Date: Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 1:11 PM
> >> To: Robert Wilton mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>>,
> >> "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>"
> >> mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
> >> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for
> >> draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 14:17 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >> > > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> >> > > > On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >> > > > > Phil Shafer mailto:p...@j

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Susan Hares]

Support – 

I’m not sure I saw this on the list. 

 

Cheerily, Sue Hares 

 



On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:48 PM Kent Watsen  wrote:

The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.

This email starts an adoption poll for:

  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll. 
If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.

Kent (and Lou and Joel)

___
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

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Tianran Zhou]

Support.

Cheers,
Tianran

> -Original Message-
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2018 2:48 AM
> To: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> 
> The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt this draft,
> and no objections.
> 
> This email starts an adoption poll for:
> 
>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> 
> Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll.
> If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.
> 
> Kent (and Lou and Joel)
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Xufeng Liu]

support.

Thanks,
- Xufeng

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:48 PM Kent Watsen  wrote:

> The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
> this draft, and no objections.
>
> This email starts an adoption poll for:
>
>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>
> Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll.
> If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.
>
> Kent (and Lou and Joel)
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Alexander Clemm]

I would second the request for one format (which is mandatory to support), 
which must be specified.  YANG-Patch is the logical candidate IMHO.  

To allow selection of other formats using an input parameter makes sense, but 
adds some complexity from there:  How to know which formats are supported?  
(Add a list of supported formats somewhere?)   Or simply rely on augmentation 
for those implementations that want it?  

--- Alex

> -Original Message-
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018 12:50 AM
> To: Kent Watsen ; Andy Bierman
> ; Juergen Schoenwaelder  university.de>; netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> 
> Kent Watsen  writes:
> 
> > Sure, one mandatory to implement format, others nice to have.
> > Interoperability good.  Agreed.
> >
> > But why YANG-patch and not something built for the purpose (e.g.,
> > YANG-diff) that, in particular, provides an actual diff as opposed to
> > a data-tree operation that only shows one of the two values?
> 
> Such a format can be developed independently, I would support it.
> 
> Lada
> 
> >
> > Kent // contributor
> >
> >
> > On 10/4/18, 3:27 PM, "Andy Bierman"
> mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> university.de>> wrote:
> > Folks, the more formats there are, the less interoperability we get.
> > If there are multiple formats, is there a mandatory to implement
> > format? Does the mandatory to implement format depend on the protocol
> > that is being used?
> >
> > I prefer one format or if necessary I am fine with one mandatory to
> > implement format. An open ended collection of implementation specific
> > formats is super flexible but defeats the purpose of a standard,
> > namely interoperability.
> >
> > I agree there needs to be 1 mandatory-to-implement format.
> >
> > IMO this needs to be YANG Patch because it is more precise then
> > constructing an XML tree with operation attributes in it (e.g., how
> > else do you represent a delete or a move?) Also, YANG Push is using
> > YANG Patch format and common code for push and diff would be possible.
> >
> > I think other formats should be allowed.
> > This is very tool-specific. I could see how somebody might want a
> > textual patch of the XML representation to produce the new XML
> representation.
> >
> >
> > /js
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 05:41:22PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> >> We agree that the diff-format should be client-selectable, modulo what the
> server supports.  yang-patch and edit-config both are viable.  Should we
> document them both?
> >>
> >> That said, since neither edit-config nor yang-patch are diffing formats, so
> much as formats for converting one data tree to another, would it make sense
> to define an actual diffing format?  I would think that a diff would provide 
> both
> values, not just a new value.
> >>
> >> Kent // contributor
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-
> >> From: netmod
> >> mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf
> >> of Ladislav Lhotka mailto:lho...@nic.cz>>
> >> Organization: CZ.NIC
> >> Date: Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 1:11 PM
> >> To: Robert Wilton mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>>,
> >> "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>"
> >> mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
> >> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for
> >> draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 14:17 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >> > > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> >> > > > On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >> > > > > Phil Shafer mailto:p...@juniper.net>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
> >> > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tool
> >> > > > > > > s.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dclemm-2Dnetmod-2Dnmda-2Ddiff-2D00
> >> > > > > > > =DwICAg=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI
> >> > > > > > >
> =9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=7s6VdzzH9O
> >> > > > > > >
> l3BOCbVLBarBrQ5fD0vTt8k_I

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Ladislav Lhotka]

Juergen Schoenwaelder  writes:

> Folks, the more formats there are, the less interoperability we
> get. If there are multiple formats, is there a mandatory to implement
> format? Does the mandatory to implement format depend on the protocol
> that is being used?

This looks nice in theory but let me remind you about the case of
choosing a mandatory-to-implement encoding for RESTCONF.

The protocols are intended to work with devices of vastly differing
capabilities and quite often there is no one-size-fits-all choice.

If a device based on a restricted platform cannot implement YANG Patch
but does JSON Patch [RFC 6902] instead, it is perfectly fine with me - and
certainly more useful than providing no diff at all.

Lada

>
> I prefer one format or if necessary I am fine with one mandatory to
> implement format. An open ended collection of implementation specific
> formats is super flexible but defeats the purpose of a standard,
> namely interoperability.
>
> /js
>
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 05:41:22PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>> We agree that the diff-format should be client-selectable, modulo what the 
>> server supports.  yang-patch and edit-config both are viable.  Should we 
>> document them both?
>> 
>> That said, since neither edit-config nor yang-patch are diffing formats, so 
>> much as formats for converting one data tree to another, would it make sense 
>> to define an actual diffing format?  I would think that a diff would provide 
>> both values, not just a new value.
>> 
>> Kent // contributor
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: netmod  on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka 
>> 
>> Organization: CZ.NIC
>> Date: Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 1:11 PM
>> To: Robert Wilton , "netmod@ietf.org" 
>> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>> 
>> On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 14:17 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
>> > 
>> > On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
>> > > > On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> > > > > Phil Shafer  wrote:
>> > > > > > Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
>> > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dclemm-2Dnetmod-2Dnmda-2Ddiff-2D00=DwICAg=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=7s6VdzzH9Ol3BOCbVLBarBrQ5fD0vTt8k_I2KDEN97c=gQWJtjc_2EF3QgRvABgZKsjqzuIw9yUq_xee6aFJOcw=
>> > > > > > [I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here, but ...]
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > Can we ensure this model contains a "format" leaf in the RPC's 
>> > > > > > input
>> > > > > > so that future (and proprietary) formats can be supported?   That
>> > > > > > leaf can be an identityref that defaults to yang-patch.
>> > > > > I think this is a good idea.  I would prefer the edit-config format
>> > > > > over YANG patch for describing a diff.  The edit-config format is 
>> > > > > more
>> > > > > suited for this purpose imo.
>> > > > +1
>> > > > 
>> > > > I would like something closer to edit-config to be available via
>> > > > RESTCONF as well.
>> > > YANG Patch is IMO better because it clearly separates the target for the
>> > > edits
>> > > from the new content.
>> > > In edit-config these two are mixed together.
>> > Yes, that is primarily why I prefer the edit-config.  I perceive that it 
>> > is a denser and more efficient format.  I think that it is both easier 
>> > to construct (when diffing two trees) and also more efficient to apply 
>> > when generating an updated tree.
>> 
>> Except for certain corner cases, for example if two trees differ only in the
>> value of a single leaf but this leaf happens to be a list key.
>> 
>> Lada
>> 
>> > 
>> > Thanks,
>> > Rob
>> > 
>> > 
>> > > That being said, I support specifying format/media-type and having
>> > > potentially
>> > > multiple options.
>> > > 
>> > > Lada
>> > > 
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > Rob
>> > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > > /martin
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > ___
>> > > > > netmod 

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Ladislav Lhotka]

Andy Bierman  writes:

> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>
>> Folks, the more formats there are, the less interoperability we
>> get. If there are multiple formats, is there a mandatory to implement
>> format? Does the mandatory to implement format depend on the protocol
>> that is being used?
>>
>> I prefer one format or if necessary I am fine with one mandatory to
>> implement format. An open ended collection of implementation specific
>> formats is super flexible but defeats the purpose of a standard,
>> namely interoperability.
>>
>>
> I agree there needs to be 1 mandatory-to-implement format.
>
> IMO this needs to be YANG Patch because it is more precise then
> constructing an XML tree with
> operation attributes in it (e.g., how else do you represent a delete or a
> move?)
> Also, YANG Push is using YANG Patch format and common code for push and
> diff would be
> possible.

+1

Lada

>
> I think other formats should be allowed.
> This is very tool-specific. I could see how somebody might want
> a textual patch of the XML representation to produce the new XML
> representation.
>
>
>
>> /js
>>
>
> Andy
>
>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 05:41:22PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>> > We agree that the diff-format should be client-selectable, modulo what
>> the server supports.  yang-patch and edit-config both are viable.  Should
>> we document them both?
>> >
>> > That said, since neither edit-config nor yang-patch are diffing formats,
>> so much as formats for converting one data tree to another, would it make
>> sense to define an actual diffing format?  I would think that a diff would
>> provide both values, not just a new value.
>> >
>> > Kent // contributor
>> >
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: netmod  on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka <
>> lho...@nic.cz>
>> > Organization: CZ.NIC
>> > Date: Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 1:11 PM
>> > To: Robert Wilton , "netmod@ietf.org" <
>> netmod@ietf.org>
>> > Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-0
>> 0
>> >
>> > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 14:17 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> > > > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
>> > > > > On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> > > > > > Phil Shafer  wrote:
>> > > > > > > Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
>> > > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.i
>> etf.org_html_draft-2Dclemm-2Dnetmod-2Dnmda-2Ddiff-2D00=DwI
>> CAg=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJ
>> UvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=7s6VdzzH9Ol3BOCbVLBarB
>> rQ5fD0vTt8k_I2KDEN97c=gQWJtjc_2EF3QgRvABgZKsjqzuIw9yUq_xee6aFJOcw=
>> > > > > > > [I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here, but ...]
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Can we ensure this model contains a "format" leaf in the RPC's
>> input
>> > > > > > > so that future (and proprietary) formats can be supported?
>>  That
>> > > > > > > leaf can be an identityref that defaults to yang-patch.
>> > > > > > I think this is a good idea.  I would prefer the edit-config
>> format
>> > > > > > over YANG patch for describing a diff.  The edit-config format
>> is more
>> > > > > > suited for this purpose imo.
>> > > > > +1
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I would like something closer to edit-config to be available via
>> > > > > RESTCONF as well.
>> > > > YANG Patch is IMO better because it clearly separates the target for
>> the
>> > > > edits
>> > > > from the new content.
>> > > > In edit-config these two are mixed together.
>> > > Yes, that is primarily why I prefer the edit-config.  I perceive that
>> it
>> > > is a denser and more efficient format.  I think that it is both easier
>> > > to construct (when diffing two trees) and also more efficient to apply
>> > > when generating an updated tree.
>> >
>> > Except for certain corner cases, for example if two trees differ only in
>> the
>> > value of a single leaf but this leaf happens to be a list key.
>> >
>> > Lada
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Rob
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > That being said, I support specifying format/media-type and having
>> > > > potentially
>> > > > multiple options.
>> > > >
>> > > > Lada
>> > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > Rob
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > /martin
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > ___
>> > > > > > netmod mailing list
>> > > > > > netmod@ietf.org
>> > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iet
>> f.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod=DwICAg=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh
>> 0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTv
>> jISlaJdcZo=7s6VdzzH9Ol3BOCbVLBarBrQ5fD0vTt8k_I2KDEN97c=
>> RVJcg5pzHW-zi1OboCL4SX2huW9euHiVRSCor9n_APQ=
>> > > > > > .
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > ___
>> > > > > netmod mailing list
>> > > > > netmod@ietf.org
>> > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iet
>> 

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Andy Bierman]

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Kent Watsen  wrote:

> Sure, one mandatory to implement format, others nice to have.
>
> Interoperability good.  Agreed.
>
>
>
> But why YANG-patch and not something built for the purpose
>
> (e.g., YANG-diff) that, in particular, provides an actual diff as
>
> opposed to a data-tree operation that only shows one of the
>
> two values?
>
>
>

The yang-patch edit list could be augmented with an 'old-value' node.
This seems reasonable to provide for leafs.



> Kent // contributor
>
>
>


Andy


>
>
> On 10/4/18, 3:27 PM, "Andy Bierman"  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>
> Folks, the more formats there are, the less interoperability we
> get. If there are multiple formats, is there a mandatory to implement
> format? Does the mandatory to implement format depend on the protocol
> that is being used?
>
> I prefer one format or if necessary I am fine with one mandatory to
> implement format. An open ended collection of implementation specific
> formats is super flexible but defeats the purpose of a standard,
> namely interoperability.
>
>
>
> I agree there needs to be 1 mandatory-to-implement format.
>
>
>
> IMO this needs to be YANG Patch because it is more precise then
> constructing an XML tree with
>
> operation attributes in it (e.g., how else do you represent a delete or a
> move?)
>
> Also, YANG Push is using YANG Patch format and common code for push and
> diff would be
>
> possible.
>
>
>
> I think other formats should be allowed.
>
> This is very tool-specific. I could see how somebody might want
>
> a textual patch of the XML representation to produce the new XML
> representation.
>
>
>
>
>
> /js
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 05:41:22PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> > We agree that the diff-format should be client-selectable, modulo what
> the server supports.  yang-patch and edit-config both are viable.  Should
> we document them both?
> >
> > That said, since neither edit-config nor yang-patch are diffing formats,
> so much as formats for converting one data tree to another, would it make
> sense to define an actual diffing format?  I would think that a diff would
> provide both values, not just a new value.
> >
> > Kent // contributor
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: netmod  on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka <
> lho...@nic.cz>
> > Organization: CZ.NIC
> > Date: Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 1:11 PM
> > To: Robert Wilton , "netmod@ietf.org" <
> netmod@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-
> 00
> >
> > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 14:17 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > >
> > > On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > > > > On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > > > Phil Shafer  wrote:
> > > > > > > Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
> > > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.
> ietf.org_html_draft-2Dclemm-2Dnetmod-2Dnmda-2Ddiff-2D00=DwICAg=
> HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=
> 9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=
> 7s6VdzzH9Ol3BOCbVLBarBrQ5fD0vTt8k_I2KDEN97c=gQWJtjc_
> 2EF3QgRvABgZKsjqzuIw9yUq_xee6aFJOcw=
> > > > > > > [I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here, but ...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we ensure this model contains a "format" leaf in the RPC's
> input
> > > > > > > so that future (and proprietary) formats can be supported?
>  That
> > > > > > > leaf can be an identityref that defaults to yang-patch.
> > > > > > I think this is a good idea.  I would prefer the edit-config
> format
> > > > > > over YANG patch for describing a diff.  The edit-config format
> is more
> > > > > > suited for this purpose imo.
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like something closer to edit-config to be available via
> > > > > RESTCONF as well.
> > > > YANG Patch is IMO better because it clearly separates the target for
> the
> > > > edits
> > > > from the new content.
> > > > In edit-config these two are mixed together.
> > > Yes, that is primarily why I prefer the edit-config.  I perceive

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Reshad Rahman (rrahman)]

On 2018-10-04, 4:22 PM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder" 
 
wrote:

On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 08:09:55PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> Sure, one mandatory to implement format, others nice to have.
> Interoperability good.  Agreed.
> 
> But why YANG-patch and not something built for the purpose
> (e.g., YANG-diff) that, in particular, provides an actual diff as
> opposed to a data-tree operation that only shows one of the
> two values?

Because this is yet a third format. There is a certain benefit if a
diff format can also be used to patch. If we create a new diff format,
guess what will come up next...
 And there are ways to get the missing values (from source datastore).

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
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

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 08:09:55PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> Sure, one mandatory to implement format, others nice to have.
> Interoperability good.  Agreed.
> 
> But why YANG-patch and not something built for the purpose
> (e.g., YANG-diff) that, in particular, provides an actual diff as
> opposed to a data-tree operation that only shows one of the
> two values?

Because this is yet a third format. There is a certain benefit if a
diff format can also be used to patch. If we create a new diff format,
guess what will come up next...

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

Folks, the more formats there are, the less interoperability we
get. If there are multiple formats, is there a mandatory to implement
format? Does the mandatory to implement format depend on the protocol
that is being used?

I prefer one format or if necessary I am fine with one mandatory to
implement format. An open ended collection of implementation specific
formats is super flexible but defeats the purpose of a standard,
namely interoperability.

/js

On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 05:41:22PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> We agree that the diff-format should be client-selectable, modulo what the 
> server supports.  yang-patch and edit-config both are viable.  Should we 
> document them both?
> 
> That said, since neither edit-config nor yang-patch are diffing formats, so 
> much as formats for converting one data tree to another, would it make sense 
> to define an actual diffing format?  I would think that a diff would provide 
> both values, not just a new value.
> 
> Kent // contributor
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: netmod  on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka 
> 
> Organization: CZ.NIC
> Date: Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 1:11 PM
> To: Robert Wilton , "netmod@ietf.org" 
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> 
> On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 14:17 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > 
> > On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > > > On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > > Phil Shafer  wrote:
> > > > > > Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
> > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dclemm-2Dnetmod-2Dnmda-2Ddiff-2D00=DwICAg=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=7s6VdzzH9Ol3BOCbVLBarBrQ5fD0vTt8k_I2KDEN97c=gQWJtjc_2EF3QgRvABgZKsjqzuIw9yUq_xee6aFJOcw=
> > > > > > [I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here, but ...]
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Can we ensure this model contains a "format" leaf in the RPC's input
> > > > > > so that future (and proprietary) formats can be supported?   That
> > > > > > leaf can be an identityref that defaults to yang-patch.
> > > > > I think this is a good idea.  I would prefer the edit-config format
> > > > > over YANG patch for describing a diff.  The edit-config format is more
> > > > > suited for this purpose imo.
> > > > +1
> > > > 
> > > > I would like something closer to edit-config to be available via
> > > > RESTCONF as well.
> > > YANG Patch is IMO better because it clearly separates the target for the
> > > edits
> > > from the new content.
> > > In edit-config these two are mixed together.
> > Yes, that is primarily why I prefer the edit-config.  I perceive that it 
> > is a denser and more efficient format.  I think that it is both easier 
> > to construct (when diffing two trees) and also more efficient to apply 
> > when generating an updated tree.
> 
> Except for certain corner cases, for example if two trees differ only in the
> value of a single leaf but this leaf happens to be a list key.
> 
> Lada
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> > 
> > 
> > > That being said, I support specifying format/media-type and having
> > > potentially
> > > multiple options.
> > > 
> > > Lada
> > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Rob
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > /martin
> > > > > 
> > > > > ___
> > > > > netmod mailing list
> > > > > netmod@ietf.org
> > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod=DwICAg=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=7s6VdzzH9Ol3BOCbVLBarBrQ5fD0vTt8k_I2KDEN97c=RVJcg5pzHW-zi1OboCL4SX2huW9euHiVRSCor9n_APQ=
> > > > > .
> > > > > 
> > > > ___
> > > > netmod mailing list
> > > > netmod@ietf.org
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod=DwICAg=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=7s6VdzzH9Ol3BOCbVLBarBrQ5fD0vTt8k_I2KDEN97c=RVJcg5pzHW-zi1OboCL4SX2huW9euHiVRSCor9n_APQ=
> -- 
> Ladislav Lhotka
> Head, CZ.NIC L

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Kent Watsen]

We agree that the diff-format should be client-selectable, modulo what the 
server supports.  yang-patch and edit-config both are viable.  Should we 
document them both?

That said, since neither edit-config nor yang-patch are diffing formats, so 
much as formats for converting one data tree to another, would it make sense to 
define an actual diffing format?  I would think that a diff would provide both 
values, not just a new value.

Kent // contributor


-Original Message-
From: netmod  on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka 

Organization: CZ.NIC
Date: Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 1:11 PM
To: Robert Wilton , "netmod@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 14:17 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> 
> On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > > On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > Phil Shafer  wrote:
> > > > > Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
> > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dclemm-2Dnetmod-2Dnmda-2Ddiff-2D00=DwICAg=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=7s6VdzzH9Ol3BOCbVLBarBrQ5fD0vTt8k_I2KDEN97c=gQWJtjc_2EF3QgRvABgZKsjqzuIw9yUq_xee6aFJOcw=
> > > > > [I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here, but ...]
> > > > > 
> > > > > Can we ensure this model contains a "format" leaf in the RPC's input
> > > > > so that future (and proprietary) formats can be supported?   That
> > > > > leaf can be an identityref that defaults to yang-patch.
> > > > I think this is a good idea.  I would prefer the edit-config format
> > > > over YANG patch for describing a diff.  The edit-config format is more
> > > > suited for this purpose imo.
> > > +1
> > > 
> > > I would like something closer to edit-config to be available via
> > > RESTCONF as well.
> > YANG Patch is IMO better because it clearly separates the target for the
> > edits
> > from the new content.
> > In edit-config these two are mixed together.
> Yes, that is primarily why I prefer the edit-config.  I perceive that it 
> is a denser and more efficient format.  I think that it is both easier 
> to construct (when diffing two trees) and also more efficient to apply 
> when generating an updated tree.

Except for certain corner cases, for example if two trees differ only in the
value of a single leaf but this leaf happens to be a list key.

Lada

> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> > That being said, I support specifying format/media-type and having
> > potentially
> > multiple options.
> > 
> > Lada
> > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Rob
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > /martin
> > > > 
> > > > ___
> > > > netmod mailing list
> > > > netmod@ietf.org
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod=DwICAg=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=7s6VdzzH9Ol3BOCbVLBarBrQ5fD0vTt8k_I2KDEN97c=RVJcg5pzHW-zi1OboCL4SX2huW9euHiVRSCor9n_APQ=
> > > > .
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > netmod mailing list
> > > netmod@ietf.org
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod=DwICAg=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=7s6VdzzH9Ol3BOCbVLBarBrQ5fD0vTt8k_I2KDEN97c=RVJcg5pzHW-zi1OboCL4SX2huW9euHiVRSCor9n_APQ=
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod=DwICAg=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=7s6VdzzH9Ol3BOCbVLBarBrQ5fD0vTt8k_I2KDEN97c=RVJcg5pzHW-zi1OboCL4SX2huW9euHiVRSCor9n_APQ=

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Ladislav Lhotka]

On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 14:17 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> 
> On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > > On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > Phil Shafer  wrote:
> > > > > Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
> > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> > > > > [I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here, but ...]
> > > > > 
> > > > > Can we ensure this model contains a "format" leaf in the RPC's input
> > > > > so that future (and proprietary) formats can be supported?   That
> > > > > leaf can be an identityref that defaults to yang-patch.
> > > > I think this is a good idea.  I would prefer the edit-config format
> > > > over YANG patch for describing a diff.  The edit-config format is more
> > > > suited for this purpose imo.
> > > +1
> > > 
> > > I would like something closer to edit-config to be available via
> > > RESTCONF as well.
> > YANG Patch is IMO better because it clearly separates the target for the
> > edits
> > from the new content.
> > In edit-config these two are mixed together.
> Yes, that is primarily why I prefer the edit-config.  I perceive that it 
> is a denser and more efficient format.  I think that it is both easier 
> to construct (when diffing two trees) and also more efficient to apply 
> when generating an updated tree.

Except for certain corner cases, for example if two trees differ only in the
value of a single leaf but this leaf happens to be a list key.

Lada

> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> > That being said, I support specifying format/media-type and having
> > potentially
> > multiple options.
> > 
> > Lada
> > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Rob
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > /martin
> > > > 
> > > > ___
> > > > 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
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Andy Bierman]

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 6:44 AM, Martin Bjorklund  wrote:

> Robert Wilton  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > >> On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > >>> Phil Shafer  wrote:
> >  Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
> > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> >  [I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here, but ...]
> > 
> >  Can we ensure this model contains a "format" leaf in the RPC's input
> >  so that future (and proprietary) formats can be supported?   That
> >  leaf can be an identityref that defaults to yang-patch.
> > >>> I think this is a good idea.  I would prefer the edit-config format
> > >>> over YANG patch for describing a diff.  The edit-config format is
> more
> > >>> suited for this purpose imo.
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> I would like something closer to edit-config to be available via
> > >> RESTCONF as well.
> > > YANG Patch is IMO better because it clearly separates the target for
> > > the edits
> > > from the new content.
> >
> > > In edit-config these two are mixed together.
> > Yes, that is primarily why I prefer the edit-config.  I perceive that
> > it is a denser and more efficient format.  I think that it is both
> > easier to construct (when diffing two trees) and also more efficient
> > to apply when generating an updated tree.
>
> I agree, this is why I prefer this format for general diffs.
>
>

If the filter input is a complex XPath expression, the result could be a
node-set that has
data from all over the tree.  Reproducing the "path from root" is an
implementation
detail that is probably complex whether it is a reconstructed XPath
expression
or a reconstructed subtree.


I don't like using identityrefs because the conformance for them is so
poorly defined in YANG.

e.g.


identity compare-format;

identity yang-patch {
  base compare-format;
}

identity my-yang-patch1 {
  base compare-format;
}

identity my-yang-patch2 {
  base yang-patch;
}



leaf filter-format {
  type identityref {
 base compare-format;
  }
}

It is IMPOSSIBLE in machine-readable YANG to say that identity "yang-patch"
is mandatory to support for leaf "filter-format". In plain YANG any of these
identities is valid.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to say in  machine-readable YANG that a client that
understands "yang-patch"
will work with a server that supports only "my-yang-patch2".

Of course there is no way to discover which identities are supported on a
server for
a given identityref leaf.






> /martin
>


Andy


>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > >
> > > That being said, I support specifying format/media-type and having
> > > potentially
> > > multiple options.
> > >
> > > Lada
> > >
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Rob
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> /martin
> > >>>
> > >>> ___
> > >>> 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
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Martin Bjorklund]

Robert Wilton  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> >> On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >>> Phil Shafer  wrote:
>  Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>  [I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here, but ...]
> 
>  Can we ensure this model contains a "format" leaf in the RPC's input
>  so that future (and proprietary) formats can be supported?   That
>  leaf can be an identityref that defaults to yang-patch.
> >>> I think this is a good idea.  I would prefer the edit-config format
> >>> over YANG patch for describing a diff.  The edit-config format is more
> >>> suited for this purpose imo.
> >> +1
> >>
> >> I would like something closer to edit-config to be available via
> >> RESTCONF as well.
> > YANG Patch is IMO better because it clearly separates the target for
> > the edits
> > from the new content.
> 
> > In edit-config these two are mixed together.
> Yes, that is primarily why I prefer the edit-config.  I perceive that
> it is a denser and more efficient format.  I think that it is both
> easier to construct (when diffing two trees) and also more efficient
> to apply when generating an updated tree.

I agree, this is why I prefer this format for general diffs.


/martin

> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> >
> > That being said, I support specifying format/media-type and having
> > potentially
> > multiple options.
> >
> > Lada
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> Rob
> >>
> >>
> >>> /martin
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> 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

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Robert Wilton]

On 04/10/2018 13:51, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:

On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 13:36 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:

On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:

Phil Shafer  wrote:

Bal?zs Lengyel writes:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here, but ...]

Can we ensure this model contains a "format" leaf in the RPC's input
so that future (and proprietary) formats can be supported?   That
leaf can be an identityref that defaults to yang-patch.

I think this is a good idea.  I would prefer the edit-config format
over YANG patch for describing a diff.  The edit-config format is more
suited for this purpose imo.

+1

I would like something closer to edit-config to be available via
RESTCONF as well.

YANG Patch is IMO better because it clearly separates the target for the edits
from the new content.



In edit-config these two are mixed together.
Yes, that is primarily why I prefer the edit-config.  I perceive that it 
is a denser and more efficient format.  I think that it is both easier 
to construct (when diffing two trees) and also more efficient to apply 
when generating an updated tree.


Thanks,
Rob




That being said, I support specifying format/media-type and having potentially
multiple options.

Lada


Thanks,
Rob



/martin

___
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

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Robert Wilton]

On 04/10/2018 11:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:

Phil Shafer  wrote:

Bal?zs Lengyel writes:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here, but ...]

Can we ensure this model contains a "format" leaf in the RPC's input
so that future (and proprietary) formats can be supported?   That
leaf can be an identityref that defaults to yang-patch.

I think this is a good idea.  I would prefer the edit-config format
over YANG patch for describing a diff.  The edit-config format is more
suited for this purpose imo.

+1

I would like something closer to edit-config to be available via 
RESTCONF as well.


Thanks,
Rob





/martin

___
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

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Martin Bjorklund]

Phil Shafer  wrote:
> Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
> >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> 
> [I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here, but ...]
> 
> Can we ensure this model contains a "format" leaf in the RPC's input
> so that future (and proprietary) formats can be supported?   That
> leaf can be an identityref that defaults to yang-patch.

I think this is a good idea.  I would prefer the edit-config format
over YANG patch for describing a diff.  The edit-config format is more
suited for this purpose imo.


/martin

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Phil Shafer]

Bal?zs Lengyel writes:
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[I've moved to a "deep lurker" role here, but ...]

Can we ensure this model contains a "format" leaf in the RPC's input
so that future (and proprietary) formats can be supported?   That
leaf can be an identityref that defaults to yang-patch.

Thanks,
 Phil

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Balázs Lengyel]

Support. Balazs

On 10/1/2018 8:48 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:

The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.

This email starts an adoption poll for:

   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll.
If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.

Kent (and Lou and Joel)

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod


--
Balazs Lengyel   Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
Senior Specialist
Mobile: +36-70-330-7909  email: balazs.leng...@ericsson.com




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Kent Watsen]

Support.

Kent // contributor


-Original Message-
From: Kent Watsen 
Date: Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:48 PM
To: "netmod@ietf.org" 
Subject: WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

The IETF 102 in-room poll showed really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.

This email starts an adoption poll for:

  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll. 
If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.

Kent (and Lou and Joel)


___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Susan Hares]

Support!  Important work! 

 

Susan Hares 

 

From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 4:08 PM
To: netmod@ietf.org; Kent Watsen
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

 

Support as co-author


Cheers, 

Jeff

On Oct 1, 2018, 11:48 AM -0700, Kent Watsen , wrote:



The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.

This email starts an adoption poll for:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll.
If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.

Kent (and Lou and Joel)

___
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

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Reshad Rahman (rrahman)]

No objection, I support adoption of this document.

Regards,
Reshad.


On 2018-10-02, 9:52 AM, "Kent Watsen"  wrote:

Hi Reshad, thanks for asking.

It's a grey area.  It could go either way.  Both charters support the work. 
 The chairs are all 50/50 as for best fit.  Squinting, it seems more an 
NMDA-thing than a transport-thing (i.e., not NC or RC specific), and NETMOD is 
more the "NMDA group" than NETCONF, at least the first-order of it seems to be 
that way.

That said, NETCONF is overloaded and NETMOD is not (14 vs 4 drafts).  Of 
course, similar people are in both working groups, but it would be good to 
offload some discussion from the NETCONF list and give this WG something more 
to work on.  I hope this is okay with everyone.

With respect to the adoption poll.  The important thing here is if anyone 
objects.  Do you or anyone else object?

Kent // chair


-Original Message-
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" 
Date: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 8:21 AM
To: Kent Watsen , "netmod@ietf.org" 
    Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

Kent, I may have asked this question in Montreal but I don't remember the 
answer: why is this document in NETMOD and not in NETCONF?

Regards,
Reshad.

On 2018-10-01, 2:48 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" 
 wrote:

The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.

This email starts an adoption poll for:

  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dclemm-2Dnetmod-2Dnmda-2Ddiff-2D00=DwIGaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=cMA9GOjXbEWKsL9ICiakKStMZSuPfNOrlbLOOkIrdqU=BKA6fI-QY2tt_NTOva9I61482LGGZdzDMFBqVF1O_0s=

Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll. 
If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.

Kent (and Lou and Joel)

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod=DwIGaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=cMA9GOjXbEWKsL9ICiakKStMZSuPfNOrlbLOOkIrdqU=VClQL9M7t-fz3-dJqMGi8tK-_iyPfbyizqPA_x8VMHo=





___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Yingzhen Qu]

Support As coauthor.

--
Thanks,
Yingzhen
发件人：Kent Watsen
收件人：netmod@ietf.org,
时间：2018-10-01 14:48:55
主 题：[netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.

This email starts an adoption poll for:

  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll.
If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.

Kent (and Lou and Joel)

___
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

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Martin Bjorklund]

Hi,

I support the adoption of this document.


/martin

Kent Watsen  wrote:
> The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
> this draft, and no objections.
> 
> This email starts an adoption poll for:
> 
>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> 
> Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll. 
> If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.
> 
> Kent (and Lou and Joel)
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

Support. 

On 10/1/18, 2:48 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" 
 wrote:

The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.

This email starts an adoption poll for:

  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll. 
If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.

Kent (and Lou and Joel)

___
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

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Robert Wilton]

Support.


On 01/10/2018 19:48, Kent Watsen wrote:

The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.

This email starts an adoption poll for:

   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll.
If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.

Kent (and Lou and Joel)

___
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

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Kent Watsen]

Hi Reshad, thanks for asking.

It's a grey area.  It could go either way.  Both charters support the work.  
The chairs are all 50/50 as for best fit.  Squinting, it seems more an 
NMDA-thing than a transport-thing (i.e., not NC or RC specific), and NETMOD is 
more the "NMDA group" than NETCONF, at least the first-order of it seems to be 
that way.

That said, NETCONF is overloaded and NETMOD is not (14 vs 4 drafts).  Of 
course, similar people are in both working groups, but it would be good to 
offload some discussion from the NETCONF list and give this WG something more 
to work on.  I hope this is okay with everyone.

With respect to the adoption poll.  The important thing here is if anyone 
objects.  Do you or anyone else object?

Kent // chair


-Original Message-
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" 
Date: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 8:21 AM
To: Kent Watsen , "netmod@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

Kent, I may have asked this question in Montreal but I don't remember the 
answer: why is this document in NETMOD and not in NETCONF?

Regards,
Reshad.

On 2018-10-01, 2:48 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" 
 wrote:

The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.

This email starts an adoption poll for:

  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dclemm-2Dnetmod-2Dnmda-2Ddiff-2D00=DwIGaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=cMA9GOjXbEWKsL9ICiakKStMZSuPfNOrlbLOOkIrdqU=BKA6fI-QY2tt_NTOva9I61482LGGZdzDMFBqVF1O_0s=

Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll. 
If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.

Kent (and Lou and Joel)

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod=DwIGaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=cMA9GOjXbEWKsL9ICiakKStMZSuPfNOrlbLOOkIrdqU=VClQL9M7t-fz3-dJqMGi8tK-_iyPfbyizqPA_x8VMHo=



___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Reshad Rahman (rrahman)]

Kent, I may have asked this question in Montreal but I don't remember the 
answer: why is this document in NETMOD and not in NETCONF?

Regards,
Reshad.

On 2018-10-01, 2:48 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" 
 wrote:

The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.

This email starts an adoption poll for:

  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll. 
If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.

Kent (and Lou and Joel)

___
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

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Qin Wu]

Support to adopt this draft.

-Qin
On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 18:48 +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt this 
> draft, and no objections.
> 
> This email starts an adoption poll for:
> 
>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> 
> Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll. 
> If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.
> 
> Kent (and Lou and Joel)
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Ladislav Lhotka]

Support. Lada

On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 18:48 +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
> this draft, and no objections.
> 
> This email starts an adoption poll for:
> 
>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> 
> Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll. 
> If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.
> 
> Kent (and Lou and Joel)
> 
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Alexander Clemm]

Support as coauthor
--- Alex

> -Original Message-
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 2:48 PM
> To: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> 
> The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt this draft, and 
> no
> objections.
> 
> This email starts an adoption poll for:
> 
>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
> 
> Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll.
> If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.
> 
> Kent (and Lou and Joel)
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Jeff Tantsura]

Support as co-author

Cheers,
Jeff
On Oct 1, 2018, 11:48 AM -0700, Kent Watsen , wrote:
> The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
> this draft, and no objections.
>
> This email starts an adoption poll for:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>
> Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll.
> If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.
>
> Kent (and Lou and Joel)
>
> ___
> 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] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

[Kent Watsen]

The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.

This email starts an adoption poll for:

  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

Please indicate your support or objection to the adoption poll. 
If objecting, please state your reasons on this thread.

Kent (and Lou and Joel)

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod