Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-07.txt

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 12:54:45 +0100

---- Original Message -----
From: "Kiran Koushik Agrahara Sreenivasa (kkoushik)"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 9:55 PM

Hi Andy

We did solicit and incorporate feature support from at least 5+ vendors
for this model.
The model represents a minimal common feature set. They are also
hierarchical as Clyde noted below.

Thanks
Kiran

<tp>

If I remember my mathematical teminology, I prefer a highest common
factor, to which augmentations can be applied, whereas others prefer a
lowest common denominator, partitioned by  features.

I do not doubt that everything you model is there in implementations but
I prefer a widely, preferably universal, core which can then be added
to.

It is a judgement call rather than an engineering one, a matter of
philosophy even, so I leave it up to rough consensus.

Tom Petch

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Monday, March 28, 2016 at 3:32 PM
To: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)"
<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: "t.petch" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>,
"[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>"
<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Kiran Koushik Agrahara
Sreenivasa <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-07.txt

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Clyde Wildes (cwildes)
<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Tom,

I understand your concern with the complexity of the model. That said,
as we progressed we encountered some vendors and some IETF RFC authors
who requested that a particular feature of interest be included. We felt
that we had to make features that were not implemented by two or more
vendors a YANG feature to gain acceptance. Which is preferred in this
case: augmentation to add features; deviation not-supported statements
to remove features; or the use of feature statements? During early model
development our YANG doctor advisor advocated using feature.

I read your post on "features - a Cartesian explosion" post. Note that
in the case of the latest ietf-syslog model four of the features are
nested such that they are not encountered unless a higher level feature
is enabled.

What would your preference be:
- remove the feature statements and ask vendors to supply deviation
statements for those leaves not implemented
- remove all leaves conditioned by feature and ask vendors to supply
annotated models with augmentation
- leave things as they are

It sounds like B would be your preference?

I agree with Tom.
IMO if the functionality is not supported by at least 2 vendors then
remove it from the standard.  The vendor can write a module
that augments the  base module.

Thanks,

Clyde

Andy

On 3/28/16, 10:09 AM, "t.petch"
<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)"
<[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
>To: <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
>Cc: "Martin Bjorklund" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>;
"t.petch"
><[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; "Kiran Koushik
Agrahara Sreenivasa (kkoushik)"
><[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
>Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 7:53 PM
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This revision incorporates feedback from Martin Bjorklunk (19
>comments) and Tom Petch (10 comments). Thanks to both of you for your
>valuable feedback!
>>
>> Regarding Tom's comment - "4.1 What a lot of features?  Again, makes
>things more complex, more error prone - are they all really needed?":
We
>started the draft two years ago and it has evolved from feedback
>received from all of the folks that appear in the Acknowledgements
>section. Please review the current draft where I believe that I address
>all of your comments except possibly this one. The tradeoff is to leave
>the feature specific functionality out of the draft and leave it to the
>implementations to add back through augmentation. That said most of the
>features that are called out have been implemented by at least two
>vendors, but not all, leading to the feature designation.
>
>Clyde
>
>Yeeees; I did a separate post on the topic thinking that an implementor
>might share my concerns about the large number of possible variations
in
>an implementation when there were a large number of features, that
>perhaps there should be guidelines about it, but it did not get any
>traction.  It is one those issues where I think, in a year or two's
>time, others might share my concern, but not yet:-(.
>
>I don't doubt that the variation exists and needs modelling, just that
>such use of 'features' may have unfortunate consequences - but I have
no
>alternative suggestion.
>
>Tom Petch
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Clyde
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/20/16, 8:10 AM, "netmod on behalf of
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>"
><[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> on behalf of
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>directories.
>> >This draft is a work item of the NETCONF Data Modeling Language of
>the IETF.
>> >
>> >        Title           : SYSLOG YANG Model
>> >        Authors         : Clyde Wildes
>> >                          Kiran Koushik
>> > Filename        : draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-07.txt
>> > Pages           : 34
>> > Date            : 2016-03-20
>> >
>> >Abstract:
>> >   This document describes a data model for the Syslog protocol
which
>is
>> >   used to convey event notification messages.
>> >
>> >
>> >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model/
>> >
>> >There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-07
>> >
>> >A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> >https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-07
>> >
>> >
>> >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>submission
>> >until the htmlized version and diff are available at
tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>.
>> >
>> >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >netmod mailing list
>> >[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
>> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

---

From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 21:12:34 +0000

Tom,

I took an action item in the Netmod review of the item-syslog model to ask you if you are ok with the resulting draft published as a result Martin's and your comments.

Diffs from v6 to v7:

https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-07.txt

Please comment.

Thanks,

Clyde

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 12:21:25 +0100

Clyde

Weeell; I still think that we may regret having so many features and so
many possible combinations;  For me, it is not a question of whether
they are there in the wild but whether it is right to have such a
complex model; a bit like ABNF where all sorts of things are possible
but sometimes a short sentence can replace lines of meta-syntactic
language.  As I said before, rough consensus will prevail, whether I am
in the rough or not.

Some minor editorial remarks

The names are still lengthy giving a line length I count as 76 which
exceeds what the RFC Editor normally allows ( 72). e.g., one of many,
(except that my MUA is going to mangle this example)
"         |     |        +--rw severity-operator?   enumeration
{selector-sevop-"

s.1 'draft'

s.3 I think that this example is fine, but would put it in a
non-Normative Appendix with a reference thereto - else people will take
it literally and you will get the same identity appearing many times
(well, that will still occur with an Appendix but at least we can say
you got it wrong).

s.4.1  'Copyright (c) 2015 '

s.4.2  'Copyright (c) 2015 '

s..4.2 The description of log-buffer confuses me.  'The buffer is
circular in nature" so there is only one of them; but it is a list keyed
on 'name' so there are lots of them.  " "This leaf configures the amount
number of log messages that can be stored in the local memory  logging
buffer." so there is only one of them. Or....?

s.5  I think it wrong to put the e-mail addresses in the RFC; editors
yes, acknowledgements no.  If you are going to do that, then take me out
of the list.

s.6
"   prefix: ietf-syslog-types reference: RFC XXXX"
suggest
"   prefix: ietf-syslog-types
    reference: RFC XXXX
"

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <[email-masked]>
To: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "netmod WG" <[email-masked]>; "Kiran Koushik Agrahara Sreenivasa
(kkoushik)" <[email-masked]>; "Martin Bjorklund" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-07.txt

> Tom,
>
> I took an action item in the Netmod review of the item-syslog model to
ask you if you are ok with the resulting draft published as a result
Martin's and your comments.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-07
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-netmod-
syslog-model-07.txt